Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete - this article is a POV fork designed to disparage its subject with no neutral version to revert to and therefore meets CSD G10. Also, the consensus here overwhelmingly supports deletion. WjBscribe 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Antisemitism[edit]

Zionist Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be an excuse for forwarding anti-semitic propaganda; it is really an argument that Zionists either take advantage of anti-semitism or are to blame for anti-semitism. Any worthwhile material in this article is already in the Anti-semitism or New anti-semitism articles. Slrubenstein

  • Delete per nom. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Anything salvageable from this article is already covered.--nids(♂) 00:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and nids. Seems to be a POV fork, but without any usable citations. Bearian 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual anti semetic propaganda. This article really is outrageous. This is how one section reads - "Although Zionists and others dispute it, the undeniable fact is that revolutionary secular and apostate elements in the Jewish community in Europe contributed greatly to hostility towards Jews after World War I. This aroused hatred of Jews in general among many non-Jews. While a prisoner in 1924 in the fortress of Lansberg on the River Lech, Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf. When he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he was assisted by Goebbels, Roseberg and Streicher. From them came the declarations, “The Jews of Germany caused the defeat of Germany in the 1914-1918 war; the Jews of Germany were responsible for the terrible conditions in Germany that followed the war; the Jews of Germany are foreigners and they wish to remain foreigners; they have no loyalty to the country of their birth; they are not human; they are filthy dogs; they have no right to intrude into Germany’s affairs; there are too many Jews in Germany" So Hitler had a point and the holocaust was the Jews' fault, right? Appalling. Nick mallory 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, complete nonsense.--Jersey Devil 02:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow. I haven't even ventured to the article, yet, but talk about your POV article titles... —Travistalk 03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of reliable sources. No evidence that the article title is a notable phenomenon. --Coppertwig 22:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - religiocruft.Bakaman 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, even if he forgot to use his timestamp. Burntsauce 21:41, 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.
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. KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tote End[edit]

Tote End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about one part of a soccer stadium. It doesn't seem like there will ever be reliable sources for it--two of the references are to YouTube, one is to flickr, and one is to an amazon.com page. SU Linguist 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - KrakatoaKatie 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slunt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Slunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minimally sourced band article without 3rd party sources to notability. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets notability criteria out of WP:BAND. Specifically, the band has been reviewed here and here. The lead, Abby Gennet is a moderately notable figure as a VJ for MTV and VH1. For further note, the first nomination for deletion had nothing to do with the band; it was for the slang term. -- VegitaU 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs work but band appears to meet notability, if only just barely. Precious Roy 10:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i see no reason to delete, it is a stub Fosnez 15:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pacific[edit]

Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship at Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Organization founded last year with no claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability Eleland 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I could find only one third-party source (other than Wikipedia mirrors), and that was unusable as a source. Jakew 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Created by a single purpose account, with a similar name to the article, with two edits; probably a conflict of interest. Bearian 01:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once its been around a few years and gianed some press, then a non-concerned party should write an article.Mbisanz 05:27, 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. No article exists for the main club, and this deletion doesn't mean someone can't create a Jersey Wanderers article. - KrakatoaKatie 02:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Wanderers (Under 16 Division 1)[edit]

Jersey Wanderers (Under 16 Division 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An under 16 league is not notable per WP:N but they author seems to assert that this is an important or famous team otherwise. I disagree but declined the speedy delete to err on side of caution. I think it is non-notable. JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "'Keep:' Personally i suggest you keep it because they are a good Jersey U16's team and we (Jersey) love them. Why delete a page when it is flaunting these young mens talent. Goooo Wanderers !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.134.39 (talk • contribs) 01:10, August 26, 2007
  • Delete - it seems to be edging on conflict of interest (WP:COI) and possibly advertisement (WP:ADVERT). ALTON .ıl 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historically and locally significant club, independent confirmation of this with this and this BBC articles. They have been the Jersey Islands champion multiple times,this and is a list of winners , between the champions of Jersey and Guensey. Wanderers have been overall champions 11 times and beaten finalists 13 times, out of the 90 times that the competition has been held, and with 20 wins in all competitions they hold the record for most competitions won. So shouldn't be deleted for non notablity, questions with regards the way it is written can be dealt with editing and rewriting. KTo288 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no doubt that Jersey Wanderers deserve an article, per the above. But this isn't for their main team - it is for their Under 16 side. A rename and rescope would seem to be in order. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    • Comment Point taken, strange that there is no article for the senior team.KTo288 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A youth team isn't notable. The information can be put into the main article on the club. Nick mallory 02:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the senior team may possibly be notable, the youth team is not. --Malcolmxl5 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN youth team. – Elisson • T • C • 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since there does not seem to be a article about the club as a whole , retitle this article as "Jersey Wanderers" and expand it into an article about the club as a whole. Although the under 16's by themselves might fail notability and fail to deserve an article, the detail about the under 16 team can perhaps stay as a subsection of a larger article, together with details about the clubs history and the senior team etc. I guess that those that are passionate about the youth team will be equally passionate and proud of the club as a whole. If we do this we will have a win win situation as parts of the existing article will survive and we'll get an article of a pre-eminent Jersey club.KTo288 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good to me (then again, it's pretty much an expansion of what I suggested above :) Grutness...wha? 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (clicked the wrong button, tried to fix it and got an edit conflict with that damn Sinebot thing)[reply]
        • CommentThanks Grutness I'm being a bit slow as I've only just worked out what you meant by "rescope". I know all the regulars on AfD's have developed your own shorthand, but sometimes it helps to spell things out. This could be probably the first AfD that some editors have experienced, and with the terse responses all they get is a feeling of hostility to their page (even if none is intended) I'm trying to sell my suggestion in a such a way that it is attractive to both sides of this debate, to those in favour of deleting, a non notable article dissapears from Wikipedia,to the clubs fans and adherents they get the opportunity to create an article about a club they love.KTo288 09:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, and no offence intended on my part. FWIW, I'm a regular at the stub types deletion page, where "rescope" is in standard use to mean "slightly change the subject area covered by this article/template/category". Perhaps I should add a comment about it at Wikipedia:Glossary... Grutness...wha? 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No offense taken, and apologies if it seems that I have taken offense.KTo288 03:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable youth team. Shame there isn't a Jersey Wanderers F.C. article though. Number 57 10:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a Jersey Wanderers F.C. article from scratch. None of this info is notable enough to find a home in such an article anyway ChrisTheDude 10:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whatever the notability of the club, there is simply notability for this junior team. TerriersFan 22:55, 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 speedily deleted by user:Ryulong. Non-admin close by Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beauty and the Beast Unit[edit]

The Beauty and the Beast Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure speculation about a game that isn't even out yet and cites no sources. Questionable notability too. Oscarthecat 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - KrakatoaKatie 02:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super 3D Noah's Ark[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Super 3D Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no references to prove its notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Slartibartfast (1992) 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Try the {{unreferenced}} tag, or look for some references yourself. [1] gives me enough that I accept that this can be referenced adequately. The York Daily Record may not be the New York Times, but it's not Joe's Blog either. FrozenPurpleCube 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worst case, merge it to Wolfenstein 3D. Eleland 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good idea about the merge. I'll leave the discussion up for now, but if the concensus ends up as a Keep, I'll propose the merge on the article's talk page. Slartibartfast (1992) 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend merging to the producer of the game and mentioning at the Wolf 3d article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article it'll be merged to can be worked out once the discussion is started on the article. Slartibartfast (1992) 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and a strong one at that. It's an commercial release by an established company, and a quirky little one at that. It's got references too, though they're not done in the "proper" format. Tag it for cleanup. --UsaSatsui 03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What parts need to be referenced and how could we find references for them? I remember some tme ago on another game someone tried linking to a download of the game itself and calling it a reference, and it was decided that wasn't allowed. Also, if this game is up for deletion/merging, how about HURL? The article is essentially mine alone, and I'm surprised it's done so well so far. If it's going to get deleted, I'd rather get it done now so I can just focus on the page on my website. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 10:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CITE should tell you how to do it. You need third-party sources about the game. The ~tsr page is a good one, the others...not so much. Just find some articles (web, newspaper, I think it's mentioned in "Ultimate History of Video Games", but I lost my copy) and cite them. --UsaSatsui 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is a collection of information. Just because it seems indiscriminate to you does not mean it is to everyone. Fosnez 15:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable. Suva 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an unusual part of gaming history, as the only unlicensed commercial release for the SNES (and the only game, therefore, to use its strange hardware), and for the oddity of having a famous shooter turned into a religious game. I'm inclined to think that all commercial console releases are notable -- there are a limited number of them, and they all get coverage in gaming publications -- but even if you don't agree with that, this one is more interesting than the average game. I'm sure there are reviews of it in gaming magazines of the time if the current references and these [2] [3] [4] aren't sufficient. (D'oh, forgot to sign...) Pinball22 13:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - a notable artifact of video game history. Korossyl 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are adequate reliable sources available about the subject. Plus, something about a religious console game operating on illegally bootlegged code which features a pass-through port to sidestep the unlicensed cartridge issue really tickles my funnybone. RFerreira 23:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They got permission to use the Wolf 3D engine. That's probably even funnier. --UsaSatsui 00:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gogoddess[edit]

Gogoddess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was listed as CSD A7. I think it is better reviewed here. I see no WP:RS and nothing to provide WP:V of notability. JodyB yak, yak, yak 22:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This reads like an advertisement. It is originally researched and has no sources against which to verify. -- VegitaU 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kappa 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree - reads like an ad. I was the one who nominated for a speedy delete. I know formatting isn't a reason to delete a page, but the fact that the page repeats itself and hasn't been fixed looks like this was someone posting the page and running. Smashville 16:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another advertisement for a non-notable web site. Googling yielded nothing that would resemble a reliable source. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:33, 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. Eluchil404 00:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers Against the War[edit]

Rutgers Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete the article is of a minor organization at Rutgers University that does not meet WP:N. Any relevant information from this article can be moved to Campus Antiwar Network (which the group is a member of) and the title itself can be made into a redirect to that article. For full disclosure, I am a Rutgers student but have no affiliation with any campus groups. I just found this article via another site and know from my long-time experience here as an admin that it does not meet our current notability standards. The article was also speedy deleted by User:MZMcBride on August 5th.--Jersey Devil 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a repost. Campus groups are definitely not notable. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete right cause, wrong place Eleland 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wrong cause, but still the wrong place. Nick mallory 01:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eleland and Jersey Devil. Campus groups can be notable, but not this one. Bearian 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the more notable parent group Campus Antiwar Network. Contrary to what User:Danielrocks123|דניאל - Danielr]] asserts above, student groups CAN be notable, if in fact they are noted by substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. See Free Speech Movement , Students for a Democratic Society , Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and even White Rose for notable student groups from past eras. The Campus Antiwar Network has received such notice. The Rutgers group article lacks sufficient coverage for its own article, since most of the coverage is just their campus paper, or blogs, or their own publications. Edison 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. It is covered by channel 13, if PBS is not a suitable source for relevance, I would like you to tell me what is. I am wondering whether the initial idea for deletion was done by a conservative group at rutgers as a way of furthering a political agenda. I was a member of the organization, but I dont think that my objection isn't justified. Monkeywithsoda 13:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. None of the above requests state any relevant reasons to delete this page. It is informative and does not violate any actual rules. Siegeflan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegeflan (talk • contribs) 17:52, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be much RS coverage of the group itself. Also open to a the suggestion to merge, but this should not be an independent article unless the reliable sources justify it in the future. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Keystone Group[edit]

The Keystone Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:N, WP:CORP not established. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, no WP:RS. Bearian 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, looking around, there's not enough to satisfy WP:CORP -- Steve Hart 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates have been made for WP:N, WP:CORP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik.jakobs (talk • contribs) 16:05, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete; possible fork of May Anthologies as well. Cool Hand Luke 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mays[edit]

The Mays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finishing an incomplete nom; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent sources giving coverage are found Corpx 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is a redundancy. Also see "the May anthologies," which has the same text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.134.98 (talk) 19:07, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.134.98 (talk) 04:27, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dish Network channels[edit]

List of Dish Network channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it TV Guide. —tregoweth (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, changed my mind, does seeem to be a discriminate list that needs help and not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list isn't indiscriminate - almost every channel has its own article on Wikipedia, and this list and its sublists do a very nice job of organizing them. A much better job than our category system can. Whoever has developed these lists, has made exceptionally good use of the features of lists: structure, formatting, and annotation. I think it's an extremely useful tool for browsing channel articles on Wikipedia. It's definitely a keeper. The Transhumanist    22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an appropriate list and also serves as a useful index to a certain body of people. It could be cleaned up a little, but it's not "indiscriminate" and isn't remotely similar to TV Guide - unless the latter now cross references against Wikipedia and no longer contains TV listings. Squiggleslash 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable Keep Clearly the Dish Network is notable enough for an article. This is a description of the service they offer, which would quite logically be something you'd include at least to some extent. It seems reasonable to keep to me. More importantly, the vast majority of this page is actually linked to other pages, thus deleting it would be pointless, and the other pages shouldn't be deleted without being appropriately tagged. This is not to say I'm completely satisfied with the form of the articles as they are now, but any improvements should be discussed, and not started with deletion. And it's not like nobody notices when they add channels. [5]. FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for those curious, this article was previously kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it was kept before, although all the keep votes were WP:USEFUL spazure (contribs) (review) 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the perils of linking to arguments without making one yourself. In this case, Useful is clearly meant to mean "information describing the operations of major content providers" and is thus quite valid as encyclopedic. Do you have an actual argument as pertinent to this particular situation? Just linking to WP:ATA is hardly convincing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "resource for conducting business" in WP:NOT. This sort of content is much better off at Direct TV's site, not an encyclopedia. Corpx 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt there's anybody using this for conducting business in any meaningful way. Do you think people are going to start subscribing to DirectTV through these pages?? I'm really wondering what you think is being done that is equivalent to that. FrozenPurpleCube 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also highly doubt anyone actually uses these pages to get information over Direct TV's official site, which will always be more accurate and up to date. But yes, this is essentially a sales catalog and I think it really has no other use but function as a "resource for conducting business". Also dont think an encyclopedia should be the place to find channel listings by provider, but that's another story and mostly WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC Corpx 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not essentially a sales catalog. In this case, a sales catalog would be describing the packages and hardware offered by Dish Network...which is not present. [6] is an example of a sales catalog in this case. Convince me how this page is anything like that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is describing the packages by showing the different tiers of service. Its just lacking the prices Corpx 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't convince me that it's a sales catalog. The question of the different tiers could be resolved by removing that information, not deleting the page, assuming you could get consensus for that. Sorry, but once again, you've absolutely failed to convince me that this is a sales catalog in any substantive way. You might as well say that by listing the types of Toyota Camry's available we're serving as a sales catalog for Toyota. FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, WP:USEFUL isn't a good reason to delete as you've failed to make an actual argument as to why it's not useful in an encyclopedic sense. I would say this page is useful in providing an encyclopedic description of the services offered by Dish Network. And these are hardly a TV guide as is meant by that section of WP:NOT because well, it's not meant to keep you informed as to the actual channel contents. FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 69.178.194.93 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be catalogued to show all channels and when they were first offered or dropped.Mbisanz 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up and Speedy Keep; it looks pretty bad these days, thanks to the efforts of some who thought they were doing the right thing, but the page still has encyclopedic and useful information (not unlike that on other similar pages). --Mhking 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not a TV guide, as it doesn't tell me what's on the Discovery Channel at 9:00 PM on Wednesday. This is a navigational aid and index to encyclopedic articles on notable television channels arranged by their appearance on a notable nationwide satellite provider with millions of customers. And I do wish that those who cite WP:USEFUL would actually read what it says: "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'. ... An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" DHowell 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tonika[edit]

Tonika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band does not appear to be notable. Sources lacking, only a handful of relevant Google hits. Borderline POV issues ("Tonika's music was very important to the people of this former Iron Curtain Republic"). Realkyhick 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the page with further content. Please keep in mind that much of the history surrounding this music was lost at the close of the cold war and it also occurred before the Internet existed. Srtuttle 06:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the music video cited has over 10,000 hits on YouTUBE! Srtuttle 06:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can still cite newspapers, magazines and books without having a link to them. Not being online does not disqualify a source, though a link does help matters. Realkyhick 07:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puting together some sources and additional content Srtuttle 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 21:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep on the basis of this farewell concert article, the only significant news story I could find in English via Google News Archive. No Google Books results. Presumably there are sources in Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 21:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep on the basis of this farewell concert article, the only significant news story I could find in English via Google News Archive, which strongly suggests passage of WP:BAND. No Google Books results. Presumably there are sources in Bulgarian. (I don't know how the end of the Cold War could have meant the "loss" of sources. It wasn't exactly an era of anarchy. I can see how those sources would not appear online.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources have been provided as requested Fosnez 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable per WP:MUSIC (criteria #4, #5 & #8 - anyone of these makes them notable) (-- Steve Hart 01:10, 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 No Consensus. While the concerns about perspective and sourcing are legitimate there is no consensus below that they rise to the level of requiring deletion. Interested parties should continue discussions about where and which content to merge. Eluchil404 00:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legilimency[edit]

Legilimency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no evidnece on the page that it meets the primary notability guideline set out in WP:NN - or the more specific guideline in WP:FICT, there is no real world content or perspective and the only secondary sources are a fansite [7] and the author's website [8], these are not independent or reliable (WP:RS). It seems likely that a lot of the article is original research this will not change without any sources. Also WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FAN seem to apply as this material would probably belong in a Harry Potter wiki but not an encylopaedia. Guest9999 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - and Guest9999, stop nominating every article about something fictional you find. Chandlertalk 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article fails notability. Judgesurreal777 01:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Holy moley, this article is a bunch of OR! Merge it if you must, but there's very little usable stuff here. --UsaSatsui 03:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely in-universe essay contrived by original research Corpx 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per above Will (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For heaven's sake, Guest9999, will you please actually listen to the points made in other AfDs?? Whether you agree with them or not on the principle of the thing, many editors (myself included) have presented perfectly valid, policy based arguments against parts of what appears to be almost a boilerplate AfD nomination which almost always goes along the lines of "Unverified original research with no evidence of notability". I first echo Xhandler's request to stop playing the bull in the china shop with Wikipedia articles. Secondly, I'll break this AfD down into its main policy arguments. As per your nomination, we have (admittedly severe) concerns over WP:N, particularly WP:FICT. Also from your nomination we have an assertation that this article should be deleted because it is pure WP:OR. Other editors have added (quite rightly) concerns about an in-universe perspective. However for the second time I challenge you to quote me the section of WP:DEL#REASON that permits you to delete this article based on it containing original research, as your three attempts last time seemed to cover just about everything but OR. I quote you my argument from one of your other AfDs:

    the biggest single problem I have with WP:FICT is that it completely and utterly discounts the canon itself as a reliable source (or at least it's interpreted that way). Surely it is incontravertable that the best source of evidence for what, say, the Expelliarmus charm does has got to be the text itself!?! That is Rowling's definitive treastise on the subject! As WP:FICT stands, what I assume it is trying to say (there are BIG problems if it isn't!) is that secondary sources are required for evidence of notability, while primary sources (the books) are satisfactory sources for actual details. If this is not what it's saying, and it's trying to say that all articles about Harry Potter must reference without using the books at all for any reason, then the problems with WP:FICT are even greater than I believe! This is what I believe a lot of people are misinterpreting WP:FICT as.

    to remind you that the majority of this article is only original research if the canon itself is completely discounted as a reference of any reliability, which is preposterous. I suggest to those who wish this article be deleted "because it's written in-universe" that, since this is almost trivial to correct, they actually have a go at improving it. To anyone who argues WP:FICT as a reason to delete this article, I ask you to please re-read it with particular emphasis on the phrase "The article can be deleted only if [options to transwiki or merge] are either redundant or unavailable". And having said all that, I buckle completely beneath the weight of the relevant sections of WP:N and WP:FICT and argue for a merge into Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and Occlumency. Happy-melon 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR should tell you exactly why articles that are original research should be deleted. And for the record, Ms. Rowling's feelings on the subject constitute OR even if she's not the one who wrote it down here. I'll give you three points, however: First off, OR should be rather loosely applied to fiction articles where the only real source is the original books (what Rowling says in an interview shouldn't really be considered, but that's my opinion). Second, OR itself isn't reason for deletion unless the entire article is original. Third, the project should get a shot to handle it first before someone drags it to AfD, and it seems that's the case here. --UsaSatsui 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOR does not tell us to delete articles that contain original research, or even that contain mostly original research. WP:NOR gives us carte blanche to do anything necessary to an article to remove all original research. If, after removing all the OR, there's anything left, then OR is not grounds for deletion, which is precisely my point. I find it impossible to reconcile your comment above with your "Delete" rationale at the top of the page, since in the latter you appear to be advocating precisely that which you denounce in the former. I'm not sure I understand your point about OR being "rather lossely applied to fiction articles" - could you expand please so I know if I'm agreeing with you or arguing! Also, if Rowling's work is original research, so is Einstein's - there's nothing different about the way they wrote except that Einstein claimed he was talking about the real world, whereas Rowling claims she's not. As Wikipedia editors, we're not allowed to perform research of our own; we're allowed, and actively encouraged, to report on other people's. And as for your third point, as a very active member of WikiProject Harry Potter, I couldn't agree more that the project should be given every opportunity to beat articles into shape - are you saying that that has already happened, or that it should be allowed to happen? Happy-melon 17:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You pretty much said what I just said: OR isn't a reason for deletion unless the article isn't worth keeping after it's removed. My comment about OR being loosely applied to fiction meant that we can't hold Harry Potter (an entirely original creation) to the same standard as, oh, quantum physics. As for Einstein, he's had many, many third party sources write about and critique his work. Rowling hasn't, and she could say one thing in one interview and something else the next, it's unverifiable. She's a first-party source. Only when it's been said in several print sources (or a book) would I accept it, but that's just my opinion. Yes, the project should be given a chance with the article, but we still have an AfD here, and it shouldn't be canceled just for that reason. My Delete stands because, in my opinion, there's nothing in the article worth saving. My comments above were a general statement. --UsaSatsui 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I... see... sort of! I'm glad we agree about OR not being a valid reason to delete. I also fully agree with you about holding fiction to a different standard to quantum physics. WP:FICT, unfortunately, doesn't!! What I meant about Rowling and Einstein was that both have done original research in their respective fields. We can, indeed are encouraged to, write about that work, as long as we don't do any more of it ourselves. An unsourced analysis of the implications of Einstein's work should no more be tolerated than an unsourced analysis of a magical art in Harry Potter. That's what OR is all about. However, just as, if we reference to Einstein commenting on his own work, that counts as a reliable source, if we reference Rowling commenting on hers (ie reference the books) that should also count as a reliable source. Of course it's ludicrous to consider Rowling a reliable source on quantum mechanics, or vice versa. That is the mistake I think a lot of people make: they think that because they wouldn't use JK Rowling to reference many other articles on Wikipedia, she's useless to reference anything. The reliability of sources should be judged based on their applicability to the subject matter. Happy-melon 17:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All i see here is a deletionist on a rampaage - no real reason to delete. Fosnez 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, covered sufficiently in the Magic (Harry Potter) article. --Eyrian 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, this is not enough information to signify its own article in my opinion! **Ko2007** 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, The person who nominated this also nominated the Harry Potter magic article the 2nd time, however it is nominated again! I think he just enjoys deleting things! **Ko2007** 11:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guest9999 has been having a lot of fun with fictional articles recently. Happy-melon 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There is no evidence of any outside universe information, a clear sign of a notability deficit. Judgesurreal777 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into other Harry Potter articles. there is no reason why Harry-Potter-universe Potions,Charms, etc should exist while this should not CrossTimer 16:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not think any evidence has been given that shows the article meets WP:NN - there are no secondary sources and no real world content. Considering that Magic (Harry Potter)#Legilimency and Occlumency already has a sizeable amount of information on the topic so I think any merge would be redundant. [[Guest9999 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Merge into the Magic (Harry Potter). I think that any extra informtion contained here should be added to the "Magic (Harry Potter) article, as it already tells a bit about legilimency/occlumency. I also don't think that this information should be considered original research as it is entirely fictional anyway. I might be wrong on that though, but it doesn't make sense to me otherwise. Shmooshkums 03:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. There are also no sources providing real world context. Jay32183 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. WjBscribe 19:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness not a crime[edit]

Homelessness not a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Technically, this is not a candidate for speedy deletion. It has been deleted several times through {prod}, but repeatedly recreated. Could we go through the AfD process, so that it will henceforth be appropriate to speedy it upon recreation? Oh, and the reason is: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. References noted by Nalacetus were added to the article, which nudges it into the keep column. - KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morphobank[edit]

Morphobank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:WEB tests, e.g. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Article just seems to promote the morphobank web site. Oscarthecat 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page provides information on not just a web site, but a new web-based application for performing group systematics projects. There have been papers in Nature, Science, and Trends in Ecology and Evolution discussing and using MorphoBank as a reference and repository for phylogenetic matrices. These references as well as a brief history of Morphobank can be added to make the page sound more encyclopedic. Nalacetus 00:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- pending the addition of the references specified. I am not sure the screenshots are encyclopedic content, even if they were to be licensed. DGG (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of significant coverage. I do not see these refs yet Corpx 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - likely notability per WP:ORG (which basically states: "has been the subject of coverage in secondary [reliable] sources"), this does not fall under WP:WEB. Not that many sources online, but several of them are from the academic community and there seems to be some enthusiasm for this (new?) product. -- Steve Hart 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; it's web contents, it falls under WP:WEB (and fails to meet it). — Coren (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Scientologist celebrities. Any merge left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Scientology[edit]

List of notable converts to Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant page. Created by a user who didn't realize at the time that such a list already existed at List of Scientologists and List of Scientologist celebrities. So much time has elapsed since its creation, however, that I didn't think a Speedy was in order. wikipediatrix 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Smile[edit]

Lucky Smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Carlossuarez46 20:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom: fails WP:PORNBIO. This is another non-notable porn actor who doesn't warrant an article. 72.68.27.19 22:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources passing WP:PORNBIO are found Corpx 06:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Haskins[edit]

Tyler Haskins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

has not played hockey professionally. fails WP:BIO ccwaters 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet all hockey notability requirements. --Djsasso 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with Djsasso. GoodDay 20:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above. Has not played professionally, fails WP:BIO. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be more inclined to keep if he had won any honours in the OHL, but at this point, appears to have had only a very pedestrian junior career. Resolute 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:BIO.--JForget 00:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as said. Kaiser matias 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per project guidelines and besides, currently fails WP:BIO --Pparazorback 04:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - KrakatoaKatie 05:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten[edit]

AfDs for this article: (Note that the first one listed is #1, the last one (with ellipses instead of periods) is #2, and the one labeled 2nd redirects to 3rd, which is #3.)
Every_time_you_masturbate..._God_kills_a_kitten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sole assertion of notability, the XXXChurch reference, lacks secondary and tertiary sources. No Wikipedia:Reliable sources although flagged since April. Last AfD's keep outcome seems largely based on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT, and "notable on Fark." MrZaiustalk 20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) PS: Also note that the topic is covered at XXXChurch.com (not that that article couldn't use shoring up in terms of refs), and seems largely limited to the one captioned cat image.[reply]

  • Merge into B3ta, XXXChurch.com, or Domo-kun. Wl219 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into said articles. Agree completely with MrZaius - no notability.--danielfolsom —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:21, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
  • Merge (to B3ta for choice). The last AfD is one of the biggest collections of invalid reasons I've seen in a single discussion - my personal favourite is "Keep - I remember this". Special prize for the first person to use the word "Pokemon" in a keep argument on this AfD — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into said articles as per Danielfolsom. And since Meowth is a kitten, mreger there to. ;-) No, kidding kiddng. -WarthogDemon 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added in the other, more recent afd from 2006 (also keep). It used an ellipsis in the title, hence is displaying at the end of the list at above-right. --Quiddity 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (to b3ta). If still unreliably cited by the end. --Quiddity 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time you Delete an article, God kills a kitten. Bearian 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember this, and it brings up an interesting point (I wonder if it's been discussed elsewhere): does notability fade over time? This survived 3 AfDs because, even a year ago, it was a popular meme. Now it's not so popular, it's getting a lot of "Megre" and "Delete". Does this mean the notability "left", or it wasn't truly notable to begin with? If it was then, it should be now. I'm keeping a neutral opinion because, while I like it and think it should stay, I'm just not sure how one sources it, or how the article can expand from here. Maybe a merge is proper, but to where? List_of_Internet_phenomena?--UsaSatsui 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More that it wasn't truly notable before. All assertions of notability in the last AfD were either completely unfounded or horribly misfounded, like "I remember it" or "notable on fark" - Take a modern admin back in time to 2005 to there's no way they'd have closed as keep. MrZaiustalk 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it was notable a year ago, it is notable permanently. DGG (talk) 05:53, 25 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". Its cute, but it belongs at urbandictionary Corpx 06:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to XXXChurch.com. Yes it's notable, but doesn't really need its very own article. If not merge, then very very weak keep. spazure (contribs) (review) 07:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Still noteable and will be forever, if we are going to just move the content to another page, why the hell move it at all? there is no point! Fosnez 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bar for notability is slightly lower for a point within another article than for an independent article. More importantly, it seems highly debatable that this was ever notable. I'm in DGG's camp that "once notable"="always notable" - For instance, you don't see me nominating the hundreds of articles for US congressmen that don't assert notability beyond their winning an election for that office. What's at issue here is that the initial AfD contained zero compelling arguments for notability and the article, after some 2 years, has never taken on secondary/tertiary sources to back up notability. Heck, it doesn't have any secondary or tertiary sources in the first place - that after being flagged for additional sources since April. MrZaiustalk 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Albert Cardona What differentiates the wikipedia from any other encyclopedia is the ability to record all sorts of information such as internet trends, that are unlikely to be ever recorded anywhere. Deleting this article is akin to deleting a piece of publicly-available history. As said above, no point in moving it either; that's what hyperlinks are for. Keeping pages small not only increases readability, also fosters it -i.e. long articles discourage reading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertcardona2 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Every time you delete this article, god kills a kitten. More seriously, it is without a doubt notable. Atropos 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that can be demonstrated in the article, great - the nom will gladly be withdrawn, but there's not anything in there yet to back it up. The primary source links about the XXXChurch derivative work are inadequate to back up notability. Barring that, there are doubts aplenty about the topic's notability. MrZaiustalk 22:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very notable Internet phenom. All this needs is some cites to be up and running. Salvatore22 22:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I've only been able to find one that directly mentions the phrase (but curiously not the picture), but even it only makes cursory mention of it while focusing on the XXXChurch. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152159,00.html Given multiple reliable sources that dwell on the actual phenom, we'd be set. If not, the merge arguments make a lot more sense than preserving the article as is. MrZaiustalk 22:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of reliable sources or evidence of notability. Try Uncyclopedia. --Coppertwig 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No major newspaper has commented on this, I don't see how this is suitable if it has no sources. Phgao 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —MrZaiustalk 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (wiki-double jeopardy). If it was notable enough to survive (apparently several) AFD reviews, then the issue sounds like it has already been settled. To keep nominating an article for deletion, after it has already been deemed "Wiki-worthy" comes across at simply fishing to get the result you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldDee (talk • contribs) 17:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
    • The Fifth Amendment does not apply to civil cases, Alex Trebek, or Wikipedia. Says so in the fine print. --UsaSatsui 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was only nominated once below, as is plainly implied by this page's name. Furthermore, multiple editors agree that that AfD was incorrectly carried out/incomplete without any solid arguments behind a Keep. MrZaiustalk 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were 2 previous afds: 1 in June 2005 and 2 in January 2006. (not that BaldDee's rationale is any more relevant, but there were two ;) --Quiddity 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So that's what he was going on about with the ellipses. Very little weighty discussion in the '06 debate, but at least they didn't use "notable on fark" *grin* MrZaiustalk 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION. Am I understanding what happened correctly? There were two previous AfD's, in which some sort of discussion occurred; twice, an admin or admins looked at the discussion and deemed the subject notable (and therefore wiki-worthy) and closed the AfD, keeping the article; some editors disagreed with the result and/or the the sufficiency of the arguments in favor of sustaining the article and have re-nominated the article for deletion, hoping to get the result they would prefer? BaldDee 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To grossly inadequate and not at all policy-based AfD discussions were held. This has nothing to do with forcing a positive result and everything to do with enforcing WP:NOTE. MrZaiustalk 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added references where I could, wikified the article a little more, and expanded it slightly. The second news reference (from ABC) is there to support the original Fox story, since the date of the latter might make people think it's an April Fool (maybe it is, I dunno). Since it's now in a better state than the article which has survived two previous AfDs, I'll say keep. I hadn't heard of it myself until I read it on WP, but plenty of others seem to, so to this editor it's of greater notability than any of the pages we're suggesting it be redirected to. Also, I suppose there's further expansion possible, since isn't there a consequent counter-meme along the lines of "every time a woman masturbates, God makes a puppy", or something similar? --DeLarge 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's close, but two of those sources, Fark and the T-Shirt store are obviously not WP:RELY, and the others only give cursory mention to this in the context of an XXXChurch article, which seems to support the calls for a merge more than anything else, IMHO. Will withdraw nom if reliable sources can be found discuss the phenomenon at length. MrZaiustalk 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Smerge (selectively merge) to B3ta. The meme is right at the threshold of notability required by WP:N with the Fox news and ABC news cites included in the article, where it is given some discussion in a slightly modified form. Unless and until more sources discuss this meme at length, it is appropriate to mention it in that article rather than as a stand alone article. Edison 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to B3ta. There's just not enough info in the refs to support notability of this as a topic of its own. Dicklyon 00:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to B3ta. It's a hilarious image, and perhaps worthy of mention in another article, but not worthy of its own article. Xihr 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an independent article. There are adequate third party sources that we can afford to cover this in an encyclopedic fashion. RFerreira 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, please provide them. Given a thorough and reliably sourced case for note, the nom will gladly be withdrawn. Again, the sources in the article at present and that make only extremely brief, cursory mention of the topic in context of XXXChurch are not adequate. MrZaiustalk 03:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources etc., as said by the editor who nominated it. Grinder0-0 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an independent article. It's become a catchphrase. BlackSun 03:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The great thing about wikipedia is future generations will be able to read about memes in the historical sense, such as Hampster Dance. I don't watch the television show, Saturday Night Live, but wikipedia explained to me what the heck "More Cowbell" meant, and now I'm the wiser. --Sodium N4 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But unlike More Cowbell, this meme doesn't have Wired and Washington Post articles, or any other significant sources, about it. Dicklyon 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above arguments. --Myles Long 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ??! Why are the two shortest keep !votes both from admins (yourself and Raul654)? Very odd! --Quiddity 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with all the other Keep arguments. This is a major cultural phenomenon that masturbation kills kittens (because of kittens being cute and masturbation being gross), and if it was relevant in the past years it still is. Many people know this expression and use it commonly, so it is notable enough to deserve an article. Also Wikipedia:Inclusionism and WP:PAPER, should allow this article to stay. Canjth 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has become a well know expression on the internet. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. "Well known on the internet" is not a notability criterion; if you want to keep, you should be citing evidence of notability, which is what's at issue here. Dicklyon 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia does not exist to document photoshops. It's impossible to say what percentage of Internet users have seen it. It's a jokey aphorism based on It's a Wonderful Life. The only sources that MAY count as reliable are the Fox News link and the ABC News link, and they're not about the image. It belongs on Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica. It, and nearly every other article in Category:Internet memes should be deleted. --Pixelface 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a independent article please there are enough sources and this is one of the most famous internet memes too yuckfoo 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add the sources to the article then, so this issue can be settled? Dicklyon 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ramos[edit]

Adrian Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An author of a marginally notable web publication, who has no claim to notability other than to be the author of said publication, and also lacks multiple substantial coverage (of him, not of his works) by reliable sources, as required by WP:BIO. Sandstein 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BIO, seems like vanity Eleland 22:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. Neranei (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator: non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Pia 05:18, 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 Speedy delete. No claim of notability. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Revelations[edit]

Platinum Revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No substantive information, appears to be an ad, 2 hits on this band name in Google, one for this page and one for a page that uses Wikipedia as source, band was founded by someone named 'Ron', username of original editor is 'Ronisasuperguy' Marjaliisa 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Notability not asserted. Leibniz 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - completely fails to assert notability, and doesn't appear to come close to WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per avobe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lavel's Street Music (Diamond Cutz Vol. 1 Mixtape)[edit]

Lavel's Street Music (Diamond Cutz Vol. 1 Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (whose article was deleted). Precious Roy 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if the artist isn't notable then the album isn't notable--danielfolsom 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if the recording artist were notable, most mix-tapes are not, and this is no exception. RFerreira 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This almost fails db-nocontext as it stands. However, it probably represents a notable aspect of the author's novels, so no prejudice to re-creation if it can become a better stand-alone article. If anyone would like the text of the deleted version in order to do this, please leave a message on my talkpage. ELIMINATORJR 22:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional versions of real people in Jinyong's wuxia novels[edit]

List of fictional versions of real people in Jinyong's wuxia novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft as per criteria 1 and 2 and fancruft. Also, the content of the list is non-notable and of little interest. Tomj 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a list for the sake of having a list. The fact that no work has been done on it since its creation shows that such a list is of interest to a very small number of people. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small number of English speakers, perhaps. However, Jin Yong is the best selling living Chinese author, so I'd wager that the number of people interested in his characters is substantial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this can, and should, be easily covered in the article. As it stands, it's just a lict of people in a novel which features historical characters. There are innumerable novels which do this, and I don't really know why we need to have a list of all of them for any given novel; too much of a plot summary, or book guide, to me. --Haemo 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, and WP:NOT#PLOT. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as mentioned on the talk page, this isn't even a complete article. Fictional versions of what? What real people are there versions of? Zchris87v 06:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted below, you could have found that out very easily by looking up our articles on these people. I didn't know who most of them were either, but I didn't assume that they were non-notable without even looking. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment listcruft and WP:fancruft are both POV essays, not policy. They really shouldn't be used as "the" reasons in an AFD. Also voters may be interested to know Jinyong is to the China and many parts Southeast Asia what Shakespeare is to Westerners, except probably more well-read. That said, it's a bit out of place in the English wiki and maybe there's a place for it in the Chinese wiki or it really should be merged into the Jinyung article. There won't be any more work done on it because the list can only be finite, the guy only wrote 14 novels. Tendancer 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized there's an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_figures_portrayed_by_Shakespeare ... this now moves me inclined to give a weak keep rather than being ambivalent, as [Jinyong]] may be the most well-read author in the history of China. This list is not well-formulated (and should've been named "list of historical figures portrayed by Jinyong" and I think the original creator might've had issues with the language, but at least that's something that can be fixed by better editors. I don't see any notability issues here: it's not an exaggeration to say at least 90% of all literate people who can read Mandarin have read jinyong--his works are monstrously successful in Asia way beyond anything authors like Stephen King/Danielle Steele etc have achieved in e.g. the US--though understandably to Westerner's this may seen non-notable because they never heard of him. Tendancer 04:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A list such as this could be useful, if there were some information in it, or even links. Deleting this will not hamper anyone who wants to do the work for doing it right. DGG (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikifying this list took me about one minute. Any experienced Wikipedian could have done the same, and discovered who these figures from Chinese history are. The article can be renamed per Tendancer's suggestion — if so, the renaming should probably take into account that our article is named Jin Yong, with Jinyong as a redirect. That article says, "Jin Yong's books are often said to be a mini-encyclopedia on Chinese customs and culture" and "Historical figures often intermingle with fictional ones, making it difficult for the layperson to distinguish which is which — a feature that attests to the believability of his characters." Given the notability of the author and the lack of widespread knowledge of Chinese history in the English-speaking world, the educational value of this list is clear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wikilinking...I also think this article has potential and is easily fixable...will endeavor to make improvements prior to end of discussion. Tendancer 01:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this author has as much influence as anyone on how the Chinese public at large see historical figures, its history and its relationship with foreigners, that I think is reason enough to keep. Matters of formatting, title etc can be fixed. As to this list being essentially fixed, I'm new to Afds but isn't a common complaint against lists here, that some are essentially endless? I'm sure that some editors would be pleased that a list is finite.KTo288 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this doesn't look at Wuxia's fiction any more deeply than the myriad ways J.R.R. Tolkien's works, and D&D, Star Wars, etc. have been dissected and analyzed on Wikipedia. It may also help readers of Wuxia discern the totally fictional characters from those taken from reality. The Transhumanist    22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an encyclopedia which is not limited by paper. Wikipedia should be more than a list of albums by U2, pokemon characters and last week's baseball. Improving legitimate articles, as Tendancer said and Josiah Rowe has done, is more constructive than thinking anything a bit foreign should go because only a few people - like a billion Chinese - might be interested in it. Nick mallory 01:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not only interested, it has influenced how Chinese people see foreigners and outsiders and promotes an idealised form of patriotism. Wuxia in Chinese pop culture occupies much the same space as science fiction does in the West, think of the indirect influence Heinlein and "Starship Troopers" has had on a certain segment of American populace with regards to poltics and personal ethics, Jinyong occupies much the same place in Chinese culture. Its not just important that Chinese people are interested in the topic, but important because it informs how a section of that number see and behave towards the West.KTo288 02:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks. Not to place for analysis/dissection of literature Corpx 06:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How does a list of historical characters, with links to the Wikipedia articles on the real people they're based on, constitute analysis or dissection? In articles on each of the books in question, there would probably be a list of characters, including the ones created by Jin Yong and the ones he took from history. The latter would be linked to the relevant Wikipedia articles. That action isn't analysis or dissection. This is merely a centralization of that information into one, almanac-style page, for ease of reference. There's no OR here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a list of real people who are portrayed in these novels. Anyone mentioned in any of the books would warrant inclusion here, making it loosely associated. Corpx 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So per the rationale given, you would be receptive to nominating this list for deletion as well? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_figures_portrayed_by_Shakespeare Tendancer 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a tough one. While it has a lot of trivial mentions, it also has lots of people with not-so-minor roles. Corpx 23:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I understand, this list is the same. I believe that some of the figures listed play major roles in the wuxia novels, while others are mere cameos. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this one doesnt tell me the roles of these people and it is small enough to be merged into something else Corpx 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well if it's too small for your tastes, one can then simply add content to it. You do notice you just changed your reasoning for wanting to delete this yet again. (first "not to place for analysis/dissection of literature". Josiah pointed out there're hardly any analysis, you then said it's 2) "loosely associated". When it was pointed out it's no more so than the Shakespeare list, you claim 3) the Shakespeare list has people with not-so-minor roles. When Josiah pointed out some of the folks in this list is major, now your reason becomes it "doesn't tell me the roles"...I thought your reason #1 was you don't think wiki should dissect/analyze the literature and go on detail about the characters and their roles??? (Per all the reason above, if legit, you should be after the Shakespeare list then, as unlike this ones it contains a litany of WP:OR and WP:NOV violating interpretations such as "Hotspur or Harry Percy (Henry Percy), brave and chivalrous but hot-headed and sometimes comical, is an important foil to Hal, and leader of the rebel forces, in Henry IV, Part 1. ") Some consistency in your reasoning would be helpful for actual discussion. 15:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Tendancer 15:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the usual arguement against list articles is "...thats what we have categories for." This is one case were I beleive categories would be a mistake, I'm sure editors on the articles of historical people will take umbrage at having a category "appeared as a fictional character in Jinyong novel".KTo288 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note this list article was created due to a (scantily-participated) "listify and delete" decision arising from this CFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_17#Category:Fictional_versions_of_real_people_in_Jinyong.27s_wuxia_novels Tendancer 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment I find it rather entertaining in that CFD the nominator called Jin Yong an "alternate history fiction writer". By that interpretation I guess Shakespeare is also just an "alternate history fiction playwright" due to his dramatization of Richard II, Julius Caesar, etc...and I can only surmise what one would need to call Homer for his massive dramatic license he took for the Odyssey... For billions of Asians, Jin Yong is at least as well known, and viewed in equally high esteem as these historic figures would be to Westerners. Tendancer 23:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Hitman[edit]

Jewish Hitman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. The "references" that were previously there were related to unrelated people. The tone of the article doesn't ring true ("child-HOOD!"), and Google search yielded nothing. After due deliberation I am fully of the opinion that this page is a hoax. Gekedo 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks more like a somewhat fanciful autobio. Either way, no notability asserted, no sources found. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunky Rice (talk • contribs) 18:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Oy vey. Delete as unsourced, unsourceable from my search, and kind of silly. The Northeast Feldman Association? What? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:HOAX.--JForget 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 14:30, 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 deletez. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrationz[edit]

Frustrationz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (the band's article has been deleted). Precious Roy 18:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - band not notable, cassette not notable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no proofs that it is notable, or that cassette or any songs has charted.--JForget 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not proven. --Coppertwig 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Neranei (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy rename to rubberwood. --- RockMFR 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parawood[edit]

Parawood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason ArgentinaTener 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page and would like to delete it. I intended to create a page titled Rubberwood (not parawood) that links to Para rubber tree.

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day-Drinking[edit]

Day-Drinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No useful references to validate widespread use of the term, however it isn't exactly something made up in school one day. merge and redirect to drinking culture perhaps? cOrneLlrOckEy 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not a phrase used in the UK. though we might go 'ooooh drinking in the daytime? that's shocking!' but that could be and probably is covered in drinking culture.Merkinsmum 22:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Trauma[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brain Trauma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this article in slightly different form was deleted before in December 2006, not much has changed since then by way of enhanced notability Carlossuarez46 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating their three albums, which also fail WP:MUSIC:[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio of http://www.ohloh.net/projects/6151?p=eMarket+Trading+Platform with notability not asserted.  But|seriously|folks  06:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMarket trading platform[edit]

EMarket trading platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software project. Google reports only software directories; no reliable source coverage. — Coren (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - looks like vanispamisment to me. Artw 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment looks like the afd1 tag was never added - I've put it in. Alos looks like theres a copyvio issue Artw 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. TW has been behaving a bit strangely in the past week or so; I've seen it fail to add db-copyvio tags (but others work fine) but it's the first time I see it fail to add the AfD tag. — Coren (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne E. Moranian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Suzanne E. Moranian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Although I appreciate the editors' effort to add evidence of notability, I just don't believe that this page meets WP:BIO. Apparently, the subject is a high school teacher who has published some articles (the existence of publications alone is not enough to establish notability) and had her works cited in books (again, not enough). I don't see evidence that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are being satisfied. In addition, although the Google test isn't enough on its own, there are 136 google hits for "suzanne moranian" and 29 for "suzanne e. moranian". Finally, much of the editing on this article seems to have been done by parties related to the subject (and I have off-wiki evidence to confirm this). SparsityProblem 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Brandon97 19:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom's statement is about right. Three Google Scholar results and minimal regular Google play, I don't see the sources to affirm notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hye_ember 10:59, 28 August 2007 I believe that this article needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. I think a significant overhaul of the article would adequately establish the subject's significant impact in the study of US Progressive Era foreign policy in Anatolia. Due to the increasingly high profile of the international pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the extermination of its minority populations at the turn of the century, and the increasingly high pressure on the US to play a role in this debate, the subject's work, already extremely influential within the small community of Armenian Historians, is of increasing interest to those outside the field.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 23:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparently no non-trivial RS coverage of her. Cool Hand Luke 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conquistador Coffee Campaign[edit]

Conquistador Coffee Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed with the note It's Monty Python; if that doesn't make it notable, I don't know what does. While Monty Python's Flying Circus is certainly notable, its notability is not inherited by every sketch from every show. There are no reliable sources which are substantially about the sketch itself, thus the article does not pass notability guidelines. Additionally the article fails WP:PLOT because it is nothing but a description of the sketch. Otto4711 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pythoncruft. Artw 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless real world sources giving coverage to this skit are found Corpx 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a reference and is a skit from an incredibly famous international comedy group (MP). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "reference" you mean the external link, that link is nothing but a transcript of the sketch. It is not an actual reference. And again, notability is not inherited. The notability of Monty Python does not mean that every five minute segment of every episode of the TV show is independently notable. Otto4711 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Otto4711. It's a single sketch, but there's no sign that this has had the slightest impact outside of Python completists (Pythonspotters?). --Calton | Talk 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amusing, but ultimately just a very small part of Monty Python with no significance beyond its appearance in one episode. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete funny, yes, but MP sketches are not inherently notable. Hut 8.5 14:29, 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. WjBscribe 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Would Your Mother Say?[edit]

What Would Your Mother Say? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn local radio show having 2 local media sources about what one would expect from any local radio show, no demonstration that notability extends beyond local area Carlossuarez46 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for reasons noted above as well as being the user who tagged it for speedy for the same reasons. JPG-GR 18:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only airs to a local audience and no real notability outside the local area Corpx 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Shoester 06:27, 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. All articles must demonstrate notability through independent sources. Just because we can't transwiki to Memory Alpha doesn't mean that we should host content that belongs over there. Eluchil404 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto destruct (Star Trek)[edit]

Auto destruct (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An in-universe, mostly uncited set of plot summaries that does not attempt to explain, if any, real-world notability. More appropriate for Memory Alpha. EEMeltonIV 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - trekcruft. Artw 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Wl219 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki Completely in-universe information with no real world applicability/notability Corpx 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, but Memory Alpha has an incompatible license with Wikipedia, so it's not an option for TW. Or has that changed? FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are GDFL compatible ones - Star Trek Expanded Universe, Memory Beta Corpx 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Memory Alpha already has a page on this subject that's pretty similar to the Wikipedia one; (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Auto_destruct) there wouldn't really be much to be gained from a transwiki, IMO. DaveJB 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Transwiki to one of the Wikia wikis mentioned by Corpx. --Pixelface 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notable in the Trek Series. If you remove this article you might as well remove all articles to do with fictional aspects of TV. Plus the article has been on Wiki for a fair while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.50.16 (talk) 04:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Longevity is not a compelling reason to keep something; there have been several Star Wars- and Star Trek-related AFDs and prods in the last few months of in-universe articles about non-notable bits of trivia. Although auto-destruct may be "notable in the Trek series," inclusion in Wikipedia requires that it be notable in the real world. --EEMeltonIV 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep If every thing in Wikipedia must be "notable in the real world" then why are there individual enties for fictional cartoon/TV characters on Wiki? if your answer is because they relate to an actors work; then this article relates to a creative work from a TV/film writer (Gene Roddenberry/Rick Berman). Therefore notable.
  • KEEP Fits notability being part of the Star Trek TV/Film Legacy. Is sourced and well written without use of "Trek Babble" Deletion would be very harsh on an article like this that has been on Wikipedia for this length of time and of this word count. If not delete then merge into another USS Enterprise article? --Frequency24 05.25, 27 August 2007 GMT
  • Comment - An article about an aspect of Star Trek does not inherit notability simply by "being part of the Star Trek TV/film legacy"; the subject must be notable in and of itself. Being around for a while and its word count are irrelevant; several long and old Star Wars- and Star Trek-related articles have been deleted in the last few months because, more importantly, they are in-universe write-ups about non-notable aspects of the series. --EEMeltonIV 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In your OPINION perhaps. This deletion seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Frequency24 19:23, 27 August 2007 GMT
  • Comment - Only that I don't like in-universe write-ups about non-notable aspects of the series. I'm part of both the SW and ST wikiprojects, and the kneejerk reaction that some editors have against including material written about fiction is rooted in the overload of trivia sitting around. Can you or anyone provide a third-party reliable source that explains the real-world significance of the auto-destruct system? Considering, as you point, that that this article is very old yet no one's cited a source, I doubt there are any out there; this article should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & KEEP - If your talking about the real world significance of auto-destruct. then this could be related to Industrial Light & Magic's work on the star trek movies in terms of special effects and the evolution thereof. that alone makes it notable in the "Real World" unless you feel that Tom & Jerry, Jack Bauer or The Terminator dont deserve "real world" wiki entries either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.83.226 (talk) 18:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - ILM's development of the effect sounds like a worthwhile addition to either the movies' or the ships' articles. --EEMeltonIV 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The function is too important to lose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaice (talk • contribs) 02:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - weak arguement from the above and what do you mean by "secondary sources" exactly? have you actually been reading the discussion? there are plenty of sources out there for ILM and their contribution to the star trek universe. Read the discussion again. --Frequency24 00:22, 01 September 2007 GMT


  • Delete. Memory alpha can host this topic, but it does not seem to have any reliable third-party coverage. Cool Hand Luke 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Disregard above comment circumstantial and opinionated comment. another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. plus it's already been established that the article cannot be trans in previous comments. Read the discussion in full. --Frequency24 00:27, 01 September 2007 GMT
  • Keep/Merge suits WP:N easily by being part of the ILM effects portfolio for Star Trek. perhaps merge into an ILM article? or a USS Enterprise artice as many exist. just a case of extra effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.71.11 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Africa[edit]

Web Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article started off as spam, but has been edited down to a few sentences so that it no longer reads like an advert. Nonetheless, internet providers are not inherently notable, and there is no indication that Web africa has been the subject of independent coverage in secondary sources. A Google search came up with nothing. As it does not meet WP:CORP, I propose that the article be deleted. Skeezix1000 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lacking reliable sources providing coverage Corpx 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no sources and right it looks like an ad-only.--JForget 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. Italiavivi 20:06, 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 Merge and Redirect I left the history intact so feel free to research and merge as you will. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Green Dragon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Legend of the Green Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject's notability seems to hinge on a passing mention in a quote in a slashdot article [9], which frankly isn't enough. A request for independent references was made back in May, nothing has turned up yet. Large number of ghits, but seem to be mostly game directories and suchlike. Marasmusine 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent, reliable sources. The article itself is at a game guide level, but the lack of notability is the main concern Corpx 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Legend of the Red Dragon which can be sourced, at least reasonably, though some of them may need to be located offline. FrozenPurpleCube 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per Mister Manticore. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to LORD, saying it as a big contributor to the article. In first AfD, we were basically dealing this as a numbers game (as AfDs were back then) and it could then be easily demonstrated that the game was both popular and widespread at the time, but nowadays (both luckily and unluckily), all we care is the print/tabloid visibility, which this game probably doesn't have. As such, I'm not sure if this warrants an article of its own any longer. However, nothing changes the fact that it's still a popular continuation of LORD; it definitely deserves to be discussed somewhere, if not its own article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marasmusine. The article contains little real-world context or independently sourced analysis about the game's development, impact or historical significance, but is a detailed summary of the game's content, and as such fails notability criteria in WP:Fiction. --Gavin Collins 22:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge per FrozenPurpleCube's recommendation above. The text could use a thorough edit as well. Rray 12:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Greatest Comedy Characters[edit]

En'tirely NN subje'Bold textctive best of list - no secondary sources. Fredrick day 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, subjective list. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see why we should make a copy of a list produced by a source Corpx 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copying a copyrighted list like this is only fair use if there is critical commentary (Wikipedia policy further states that this commentary must attributable to reliable sources). Otherwise, it is a copyright violation, and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. --Phirazo 02:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably not a copyvio; lists like these generally aren't copyrighted, simply because creators like Channel 4, TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, etc., want to encourage reporting of things that reinforce their image as "authority" on a subject. There may be a place for lists like these, as a snapshot of what people enjoyed at a particular place and time; in 2057, cultural archaeologists might refer to this list. However, it doesn't merit its own article. In this case, this is mildly interesting as an insight into British culture for those of us who aren't British. One thing Americans and Brits have in common is that we think we speak for the entire planet. Mandsford 16:12, 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.

I believe the children are the future.

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-Cash[edit]

No-Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Unsourced. — OcatecirT 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep for now. It seems that most people believe that this topic is notable and verifiable. — TKD::Talk 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinmeiaishinkai[edit]

Shinmeiaishinkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A "new religion" which generates little noise via a quick Google search, and the only reference listed is a single page in a magazine. Only link is from the article Urban Shamanism, which characterizes this religion as being a form of that religion. It's been tagged as needed more notability information for about six months now, and unless someone finds something now, this doesn't really seem worth keeping. fuzzy510 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I don't recall why I created this stub, but I think it was to wikify the term in another article. HOWEVER, just to explain what you are looking at, though the listed reference is to a page in a journal, the reference is to a review of a book (that I have not seen), Religion in Japan: Arrows to Heaven and Earth (ISBN 0521550289) published by Oxford University Press, a collection of essays honoring Carmen Blacker, a scholar of Japanese folklore and religion. According to the review, one of the chapters in the book is about Shinmeiaishinkai, explaining that it is a "new religion" founded in Tokyo in the 1970's. Therefore, I believe that someone with access to the book could potentially add more information to this stub. Crypticfirefly 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've looked on OUP's website, the relevant article is "Shinmeiaishinkai and the study of shamanism in contemporary Japanese religious life" by Helen Hardacre, a professor at Harvard University. Looks like the book is pretty readiliy available in academic libraries. Crypticfirefly 22:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I would suggest "keep" but feel that would be inappropriate as I made this stub in the first place and am not going to have the time to hunt down the cited book anytime soon. That said, I'm convinced that someone with access to the book would be able to establish notability one way or the other. Crypticfirefly 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the book is available at the University of Maryland, where User:Fuzzy510 happens to be (according to his user page). Crypticfirefly 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first source (Arrows) is available at google books and searching for "komatsu kiyoko". Searching the web for the founders name in kanji (小松　清子) has not turned up much in Japanese. Neier 07:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be interested in finding out if searching the web for the name of the religion in kanji turns up much. Crypticfirefly 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found the kanji, and added it to the article. Google comes up with 117 hits. The second one is to a forum, which ties the religion to these shrines. The shrines fare a bit better in google (235 hits). Neier 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that another one is to a magazine that apparently had an article about this religion: http://www.nihonjournal.jp/web/jituwa_200630/index.html.Crypticfirefly 01:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we need an article about every religious movement however obscure?--Bedivere 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? How obscure this is, I mean. Crypticfirefly 01:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, actually, Wikipedia should have an article on every religious movement, except for those that come under the heading of "things made up in school one day". RandomCritic 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, searching on ja:wikipedia returns a link to 新宗教 which links to New religious movement from which you can navigate to List of new religious movements where you'll find 200 or so other "new religons. According to this list a religion founded in 1937 would still be considered "new" by the Japanese, so a 1970 one would still be new. I'm pretty convinced by crypticfirely's arguements as to its credentials and that this is not a recent crackpot religon. Despite the paucity of details in te article as it is I'd be loathe to delete, as to do so would reinforce the systemic bias towards English Western topics. Maybe we could give this article another six months and in the mean time put a request for help on the ja:wikipedia's 新宗教 discussion page.KTo288 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sandstein 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per KTo288. Ichormosquito 16:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No Lexis/Nexis hits, though the scholarly sources cited in the article are enough to sustain a short article. No harm would be done if this were merged into some appropriate larger article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per nom,not notable and even the person who created the stub has abstained.Harlowraman 17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crypticfirefly is just being polite and neutral by abstaining from an article he or she has a vested interest in.KTo288 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One major source, but it is scholarly, and the religion is attested to have 50,000 members at that writing. Surely there must be more sources for this somewhere, perhaps under a different name. --Dhartung | Talk 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've put a request for enlightenment and help at WikiProjectJapan talk page. Hopefully someone can tell us how notable the topic is.KTo288 19:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The information I can find on it indicates it's not just a tiny little group. However, outside of the one scholarly source, all the other information online seems to be in blogs and other sources considered less reliable. I do think that one scholarly source should be given more weight than normal in this case as it's very, likely there are other books out there that just aren't available online. Japan does lag a little (2-3 years, though the gap is getting smaller) behind the States in having resources online. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a significant topic that WP should cover. RandomCritic 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable Fosnez 15:21, 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. WjBscribe 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crack Rock Steady[edit]

Crack Rock Steady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, made up musical genre. "Notable bands in the genre" made up of non-notable bands. — OcatecirT 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced, neologism. Speciate 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although a frequent editor of the related pages, and knowing that these bands have a distinct style, it's really just the style of one band with several incarnations. It's not a genre so much as a fusion style or something, and isn't mentioned in any notable or reliable source as anything but "the catchy sound of that one band" or something to that effect. Certainly worth mentioning in Leftover Crack. Not worth its own article. --Cheeser1 08:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line Theory[edit]

Line Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. No reliable sources found. Prod contested by creator who has only edited this. "Line Theory was created by Nishant Shukla in the Spring of 2007. It is a relatively new theory and is still in research." External links are to selfpublished sources, or sites that don't mention line theory or Shukla. Nishant Shukla was deleted in January as not notable. PrimeHunter 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the deletion, Dean. This does not belong in an encyclopedia YET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkmate722 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. That was the creator who contested the prod. Is it WP:SNOW time? Creator also accepted deletion on article in [10] (which I reverted since it doesn't belong there). PrimeHunter 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mathematics in this article appears to be trivial, and expressed in jargon invented by the creator of the page. Probably the novel jargon, which is unneeded, is the only novel thing here. Michael Hardy 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Gandalf61 09:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a snowball keep, without prejudice to renomination of the individual articles. The nominator is advised by this editor to try doing things one at a time, rather then in a all-at-once, all-or-nothing manner. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS 4e Basic Set[edit]

GURPS 4e Basic Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These articles are advertorials that fail the WP:SPAM guidlines, designed to promote books that do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) criteria. The articles do not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, nor do they offer detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, but are solely a detailed summary of each book’s content, and as such fail WP:Fiction. They have not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject; rather they cite links to advertorials, product launch announcements and an award given to them from a related trade association. These articles have been created to promote both the books, the games and the publishers in contravention of WP:SPAM. The books in question are:

GURPS, GURPS Bestiary, GURPS Blood Types, GURPS Shapeshifters, GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Atomic Horror, GURPS Autoduel, GURPS Mysteries, GURPS Space,GURPS Supers, GURPS Ice Age, GURPS Middle Ages I, GURPS Timeline, GURPS Alternate Earths, GURPS Alternate Earths II, GURPS Black Ops, GURPS Cabal, GURPS Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, GURPS Horseclans, GURPS Illuminati University, GURPS Planet of Adventure, GURPS Reign of Steel, GURPS Riverworld, GURPS Terradyne, GURPS Uplift, GURPS War Against the Chtorr, GURPS Mixed Doubles, GURPS Traveller, GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars,GURPS In Nomine.

Wikipedia is not a book promotion site like Amazon or Ebay. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge: I thank Gavin for drawing attention to the poorness of some of these articles.
First of all: does this proposal includes GURPS itself? It seems not, but there is an AfD tag on its page.
Secondly: as already partially said in the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Technomancer, you seem to believe that the publisher of these books looks for free advertising. In the field of role-playing games, GURPS and its supplements are amongst the most well-known: it would be a bit like saying that Bloomsbury Publishing spams Wikipidia to sell more Harry Potter copies.
Thirdly, and more to the point: other people will be able to say more about the notability of these books, but a quick search shows that some of them received awards and recognitions (some of them before the diffusion of the Web). For instance, GURPS Space won the "Best Roleplaying Supplement of 1988" Origins Award (see the list of winners).
So, my suggestion is to keep the two or three truly notable books, and merge whatever is worthy morging of the rest, in GURPS or in List of GURPS books. --Goochelaar 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sadly for article GURPS itself and the related books, there aren't any independent references to books, journals or magazines, so there is no apparent evidence of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Worse still, the links to the publisher's website and extensive cross referencing with related GURPS suggest this group of articles were created mainly for promotional purposes. The number and lenght of the articles makes this a difficult call, so perhaps this is a topic worthy for discussion on WP:WPSPAM, but sadly I can't raise start such a discussion as that would be soliciting. --Gavin Collins 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some/Merge some This is probably the best solution. For example, GURPS Illuminati University won the 1992 Origins Award for Best Role-playing Supplement (and I just added that fact to the article). I'm sure there are others than won the Origins Award and/or some other notable award. I will try to locate some more and add them to the articles. While I understand the author's intention for the mass nomination, perhaps it would be better if they were done individually and then each could be judge on their own notability (or lack thereof). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) And, not having looked at all of the articles, yes I would agree that a few of them appear particularly spammy in nature, but I don't think it's a deliberate attempt on the part of the company, but probably some overzealous admirer of the game system (but I could be wrong). These could (and should) be rewritten/redirected. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close/relist seprately - These should be judged on individual merits. Artw 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist as above. As for notability, several of these books have also received Outies or at the very least have received "honorable mentions" for the Outies, game awards given (I think) by Out of the Box Games (not affiliated with SJG). [11] --Craw-daddy | T | 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist please so they can be judged on their individual merit Corpx 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and Relist: For one thing, it would be very hard to claim that these are promotional articles, given that most of them are years out of print, and ascribing malicious intent to the same is at best a WP:AGF violation. For another, many have received industry awards, making a prima facie case for notability; calling them "related" trade associations works only if you assert that these associations are functionaries of Steve Jackson Games, a curious argument for which I'd be interested in seeing your evidence. As it stands, it is difficult to take seriously a nomination that lacks evidence of taking seriously the notability of each case.  RGTraynor  18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No malicious intent asserted. Industry awards are a common in the gaming and publishing industry as a method of promotion, but some are more notable and independent than others. This group of articles should be reviewed together; for they are interlinked, follow the same pattern of advertorial, but individually and collectively, evidence of notability is sadly lacking. --Gavin Collins 18:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Well, let's see. Do you claim that the Origins Awards are neither independent nor notable in the gaming field? That's the one most commonly cited. Beyond that, looking at your nominations more closely, some already redirect to GURPS (GURPS High-Tech, for instance), others already have references to independent sources (GURPS Mysteries, GURPS Reign of Steel). Was this just a blanket portmanteau of GURPS title articles on Wikipedia?  RGTraynor  19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that he listed In Nomine (role-playing game), which isn't even a GURPS product (it's made by the same company, and a redirect exists at GURPS In Nomine because there's a book of that title quantifying the setting in GURPS terms), I'd say signs point to "Yes, this was a blanket nomination". Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Hmmm, Origins Awards are amongst the most notable awards in the gaming industry, given out for more than 30 years by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design. Two of the books mentioned above have received Origins Awards, disproving your claim that "individually... evidence of notability is sadly lacking." Please relist them individually. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If the Origins Award is not notable, then its article should be proposed for deletion. If it is notable, then games that have won it, and especially ones that have been inducted into its Hall of Fame, are notable by analogy with the WP:BK standards. In any case, WP:FICT is an inappropriate standard; GURPS is a set of rules for a game, like Monopoly (game) or football. Similarly, the books are physical products with ISBN numbers. They are not fictional concepts like the Land of Oz or Prince Hamlet. Ehrbar 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles are not advertorials. As noted previously, many of these have been out of print for years and aren't likely to see a new edition. If some of the articles are poorly written, then they should be revised, not deleted. This is frankly one of the more bizarre nominations for deletion that I've seen. Rray 19:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does a ... For Dummies book satisfy the notability requirements (at least for the main GURPS rulebook)?  :) GURPS for Dummies by Stuart Stuple, Bjoern-Erik Hartsfvang, Adam Griffith ISBN 0-471-78329-3 I don't know what (if any) affiliation the authors of that book may or may not have with SJG, but clearly the publishers of the ...For Dummies series thought it was notable enough for its own book. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that book. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I had a look at the Dummies book on Amazon.com, and it says on the cover it was "Created in partnership with Steve Jackson Games". There was no material in the preview chapters regarding GURPS development, impact or historical significance or any other evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all If they're going to be nominated as a group, then I have to say keep all of them. Some of the books on this list may not be notable, but some of them certainly are. Relisting separately may be advisable. -Chunky Rice 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close This is far too complicated a situation to handle with AFD, and as such, this should be taken up with another method instead of just dumping things here for deletion. Try for example, contacting the Wikiproject on Roleplaying games. Plus you already put one of these on AFD. I'm sorry, but your shotgun method of nominating for deletion without even considering the consensus of existing discussions is quite unfortunate. I'm not quite sure you're engaged in bad faith actions, but I do think you would be well served to consider other methods. As far as notability goes, did you think to *look* for other independent references? Because if you didn't, that's a problem. If you didn't find them, I can only assume you missed the numerous Origins awards and nominations, the numerous articles about GURPS and Steve Jackson Games in existing publications. For example [12] for one review of many or [13]. Note how many awards are there? Heck, it's a Hall of Fame member. FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - A very strange nomination, I feel, equating GURPS to GURPS War Against the Chtorr strikes me as bizarre. --Agamemnon2 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game system and individual supplements, GURPS Space amongst them have won awards. As always with poorly written articles the solution is to copyedit and improve not delete. Ok its easier to delete than to put the effort into trying to improve an article, but that shouldn't be the default position. As to the contention that this is advertising, would such accusation would be made against films, cars, novels etc.KTo288 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist individually; until then, Keep all. This is a grab bag nomination, and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote most of one of these myself, and as I have no interest in promoting the book or connection to Steve Jackson Games I don't see how it can be considered spam. I wrote the article simply because I happened to have the book in question and remembered a lot about the details in it. This AfD is clearly indiscriminate, IMO. Bryan Derksen 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the articles for GURPS Cabal, GURPS Monsters and GURPS Shapeshifters. All three books are listed for sale on Amazon.com, which as far as I know is still considered a reliable secondary source. Even if they were out of print and unavailable...so what? "Notable" isn't the same thing as "currently popular." They'd each still have a unique ISBN which proves they weren't printed in some random teenager's garage for the five guys in his gaming club. 63.215.28.84 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist GURPS itself is highly notable, even though article needs some work. GURPS 4e Basic Set also seems notable. As for individual source books, they are different enough that relisting them separately is probably the way to go. I don't think this is spam per se, but is more likely over-enthusiastic fans. --Phirazo 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GURPS is a pretty significant RPG. Some of those books, though...maybe not, but when you're throwing them all together like that...maybe a list would be the right way to go here? --UsaSatsui 03:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For those of us who've heard of GURPS, but aren't RPG weenies & may want to know more.... Trekphiler 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I'm an occasional D&D player...)[reply]
  • Close and relist individually The notability of the Core GURPS set is difficult to dispute, given the number and type of awards it has won. While the article could be improved, simply being substandard is hardly worth a call for deletion, let alone a poorly considered and undocumented shotgun nomination like this. However, many of the worldbooks and supplements that currently have their own pages can and should be merged into the core article, most of them utterly fail notability on their own, but could be made part of a comprehensive core article. Leon Stauffer 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is inaccurate in most points. Edward321 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GURPS itself will have many, many reliable secondary sources. Some of the books listed might not, but they should be listed separately and considered individually. Sci girl 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only relation In Nomine has to to the GURPS 4e Basic Set is that one supplement for the line offered rules for converting to the third edition of GURPS -- not even the edition in question. However, Mr. Collins has nominated this award-winning game for deletion based solely on this one supplement. --Master Forcide 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above arguments asserting notability. Weak due to {{notaballot}}, which I just added. Giggy\Talk 07:47, 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, really confused article, no prejudice to re-creation if a good article can be created. ELIMINATORJR 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samaka GPMG mount[edit]

Samaka GPMG mount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Don't really know how to do this. --Asams10 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (Malformed AfD repaired by Sandstein 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete for lack of WP:RS. Fancruft or hoax probable. Something in 7.92mm would not be called 'kanone'. Leibniz 15:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep have added a ref that suggests this is not a hoax. --Oscarthecat 17:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some reference. "Everything is submitted and created by the Rifles N Guns community." Created sounds apt. Leibniz 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have faith brother. More refs added, furthering the theory that this isn't a hoax. --Oscarthecat 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the Williams ref, something called "Salvenmaschinenkanone" may exist in the form of obscure prototypes, but that is not a GPMG mount. The trouble with this article is that it was created by a permablocked vandal who confused everything with more than one barrel. Leibniz 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I won't pretend to know anything on the subject, I'll leave it be now. Regards, --Oscarthecat 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete pending any actual reliable sources, which does not include random web pages. A Google search for Salvenmaschinenkanone indicates that such a prototype flak gun probably did exist, but we really would need some published reference book as a source. Sandstein 19:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being.It appears such a weapon existed but the details in the article are wrong, there are photos [here] of such a wepon but its 20mm not 7.92mm.KTo288 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what do you want to keep? Salvenmaschinenkanone or GPMG mount? Very different beasts. It is like an article on catdog with pictures of cats and data on dogs. Leibniz 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whatever is decided here, it must be noted that essentially the same article was created here by a user who is most likely our good friend Jetwave Dave, the aforementioned permanently banned vandal. If this (Samaka) is deleted, the other should go as well. Parsecboy 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete text does not make sense, talks about a Gatling gun but the system is nothing like it.

One of the references does not display. The pictures reference has nothing to do with the articles. The pictures are not real guns, they seem to lack any way to feed ammunition to the guns and are not mentioned by any reliable source.

I doubt the images from the Russian museum are fakes; they are more likely incomplete examples of the weapons. However, they are 20-30mm weapons, not the 7.92mm the article states.Parsecboy 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all delete arguments, nothing left to say --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Rbaal 08:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's poorly done right now but the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 23:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live At Vicar Street[edit]

Live At Vicar Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable recording from a non-notable band. It could not be speedied because of the strict wording of CSD A7. It is however non-notable by the usual standards JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the Dubliners are definitely a notable band, so it is easily a notable album.[14] Fram 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not certain that albums of notable bands are automatically entitled to their own article. The guidance at WP:MUSIC seems to suggest that they can be or they can be merged into the bands article. Perhaps that would be better?

--JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth could you say The Dubliners are a non notable band? Such a statement doesn't speak well of your research into this article. You now seem to agree the band is notable, will you also change your mind about the album? Nick mallory 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should stick to the discussion and not the nominator. I do not believe the album is notable.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sticking to the discussion, unlike your comment which doesn't answer my point at all. The nominator, that's you JodyB, said 'The Dubliners' themselves were not notable, which you were clearly wrong about as they're a famous Irish folk outfit who've been performing and making records since 1962. Wikipedia rules say a band has to have released two albums, the Dubliners have released more than 40. This shows that you'd done no research into this article, as you're supposed to do under the AfD rules - an article you were keen to speedy let's remember. There seems no reason to assume you're right about the CD not being notable if you're so wrong about the band, haven't even bothered to look them up and seem to know nothing about the subject. I rewrote the article somewhat so if it was a copy vio, it is no longer. Nick mallory 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable album by notable band. Golfcam 14:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: Although the band and album seem notable, this reads like a copyvio. —gorgan_almighty 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra strong keep How could anyone have thought this deserves deletion? A relatively major (the first album for three years) album by probably the most successful band in their genre — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. "Keep" per Iridescent and "weak" per Gorgan almighty. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify - the article as nominated read like a copyvio, as it seemed to start in mid-paragraph. The current version seems less so. Of course an edited copyvio is still a copyvio, but I haven't actually been able to find the text as nominated appearing anywhere else on the web. —gorgan_almighty 12:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ward (Director/Producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mike Ward (Director/Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this person. The sources on the article are not about Mike Ward, and googling "Mike Ward" with "Monk Media" yielded no reliable sources that would confirm notability. Autobiography, prod removed by Mike Ward without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could find anything either. Delete. ~ Wikihermit 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The show is arguably notable but not the producer. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, resume for behind-the-scenes person. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:COI as well, creator and sole editor was Mward21 (talk · contribs). He's only worked on one programme that's even got an article. Hut 8.5 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have heard of him before, but he is probably not notable enough for Wikipedia standards, so he is pretty much unverifiable and there isn't much citation to back him up. His shows may be notable, though. --RockerGrrrl 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - iMDB shows one episode of Look-A-Like dorected, and nothing else. This is clearly an inflated vanity peice. Artw 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and blatant COI issue--JForget 23:25, 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. Kurykh 06:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Church Cemetery, Hardyston[edit]

North Church Cemetery, Hardyston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I noticed that recently, lots of articles are created for cemeteries with as apparently the sole reason the fact fact that some notable people (mainly politicians) are buried there. It doesn't look like these cemeteries are wel-known or notable as such (unlike e.g. Père Lachaise Cemetery or Isola di San Michele) but are only given because of the link with the notable people. This seems to me a clear violation of WP:NOTE: if no reliable independent sources exist about these cemeteries (apart from being mentioned in passing as the place where X is buried), then we shouldn't have an article on them. I list only this one, as a test case and because not every cemetery is the same (some may be noted as historical places or whatever), but the intention is to list many more if people here agree with my reasoning in general. Fram 12:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found about the subject of the article itself. Jakew 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of the buried person is not automatically inherited by the place at which they are buried (a re-work of WP:NOTINHERITED). —gorgan_almighty 15:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cemeteries are explicitly notable because of the people who are buried there. Having four congressmen buried at a cemetery over a 100-year period of time is a rather strong claim of notability and evidence that the cemetery was viewed as a significant and notable site during that period. Reliable and verifiable sources are provided in full compliance with the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I'd be more than happy to search for additional comprehensive sources about the cemetery, but few of the newspapers published between 1821 and 1919 in Sussex County are available online. Alansohn 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most every cemetery of any size will have someone of civic significance buried in them. There have been thousands of Congresspersons, industrialists, civic benefactors, etc. - all now-forgotten. The dirtnap of the once-notable does not confer notability. Was the cemetary designed by someone famous? (see Forest Hills Cemetery)Is there a major Civil War memorial there? The place itself needs a claim to fame beyond its 'members'. MarkinBoston 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cemeteries should be inherently notable, just as any geographic location such as cities and towns, and now High Schools. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dreaded slippery slope argument is utterly irrelevant. A strong and explicit claim of notability which needs to be rebutted. Alansohn 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trouble is, saying "all X are notable", where X is a particular class of subject, isn't really a claim of notability. One could also say "people are inherently notable", "goldfish are inherently notable", or "fields are inherently notable". Jakew 18:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that something should be notable doesn't make it notable. Can you justify your statement in any way? In what way is a cemetery anything like a city, town, or school? —gorgan_almighty 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cemeteries are NOT inherently notable and it should stay that way. Just because some famous people are buried there does not make it notable. This one is severely lacking "significant coverage" from independent sources. An encyclopedia should not be a "Who is buried where" trivia collection Corpx 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Corpx. Wishful thinking doesn't equal firm notability guidelines that suggest otherwise failing articles on cemeteries should be kept. VanTucky (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per above. Notability is not inherited, we have been over this before in a lot of cases. Barsportsunlimited —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:01, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

  • Delete per Corpx. Unworkable to assume cemeteries are inherently notable because the people buried there. Recurring dreams 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cemeteries are notable and this one is particularly so due to a New Jersey governor and at least a few US congressmen being buried there. --Oakshade 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability does not flow with the products of decomposition from congressmen into the soil they inhabit until land reuse, future archeologists, judgment day or plate tectonics remove them. For this or any cemetary to be notable enough for an article, there would have to be substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. The courtesy notability given to every village and geographic feature does not extend to every church or every church (or nonchurch) cemetary. Edison 17:50, 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 Speedy deleted both. Carlossuarez46 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin (Los Angeles)[edit]

Griffin (Los Angeles) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded by another editor for non-notability, contested by creator. Band has released 1 EP, apparently had songs played on a couple of TV series, although there seems to be some doubt about this (see article talk page) - however, I'm doubtful that it meets WP:MUSIC criteria. There are no references, and the only link is to a MySpace page. The EP Borrowed Brilliance EP has also been prodded by another editor, and if this article is deleted, the article on band member Christina Griffin may need to be considered also --kateshortforbob 12:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Griffin (Los Angeles) (which has been blanked by the creator) and Christina Griffin per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both the band article for being blanked and Christina Griffin for no assertion of notability.--Sethacus 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete them both - Christina Griffin and Co. are a band that I saw live as one of my favorite local bands Redboy opened for them. I tried to put Redboy and lead singer Maria Carter on here earlier and both got speedy deleted pretty much instantly - I guess wikipedia isn't too fond of unknown bands. :P Just get rid of them. --RockerGrrrl
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McMahon[edit]

Ryan McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article lists no sources and his contributions to the Tony Hawk series do not make him notable. Band information also doesn't make him notable as it can't be confirmed unless a source is provided. Xtreme racer 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Chicago Sun Times article on the band (surprise) cannot be found. Outside of that, no other sources indicate notability. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every musical act on Earth to try and get famous.--Sethacus 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a joke page. No refs, no notablity I can see. MarkinBoston 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability. --Hooperbloob 00:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I don't know much about editing, but this guy is huge out here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.91.232 (talk) 01:17, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as 0 delete votes, 1 merge vote and not enough rationale for deletion. Non-admin closure.--JForget 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fivefold kiss[edit]

Fivefold kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. TotesBoats 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My googling indicates that this is a fairly well-known and significant ritual in Wiccan practice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". Dbromage [Talk] 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No problems here - article needs tidying of course but the subject matter is encyclopedic and verifiable. Pedro |  Chat  12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep verifiable from the published books about NeoPaganism, and a key point in published rituals.--Vidkun 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This definitely seems to satisfy WP:N. bwowen talk•contribs 15:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABSOLUTLEY KEEP! This is a very useful article that describes an important religious ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.97.195 (talk) 19:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • comment article writers/users admit with this redirect Fivefold kiss#The Term "Blessed Be" that as it stands this essay of speculation covers and merges two topics. At the very least that should be fixed. I suspect much of this is already in the Wicca article, at least the term 'blessed be'. It needs to not be in essay form and be mingling at least two subjects in an essay-like way. Or if it is going to cover two subjects, rename. I think this can all be in the Wicca article actually, despite how the wiccan fanboys feel. 'fivefold kiss' brings up a surprisingly low number of google hits (185 unique hits) considering the well-usedness of the rite. Also, this reads as WP:HOWTO as it gives all the words of the small rite. Maybe rename to call it 'blessed be', then including the two customs in one article would make more sense. 'Blessed be' has 829 unique hits. (i know the google test isn't perfect, but gives an idea of notability.)Merkinsmum 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IVENEVERHEARDOFIT is not a valid demonstration of non-notability. This is a clearly notable ritual with some importance within the Wiccan community. RandomCritic 02:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wicca unless multiple reliable sources are added to the article. A search of Google Books [15] suggests that the subject of the article is mentioned in a number of books. The keep arguments above are basically personal assertions of "I've heard of it" or "I personally know it is important" and like the article fail to provide multiple citations that are substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are online sources that are hard to judge, and a book citation lacking a cite to specific pages which document the ritual. Giving the editors who cited the book the benefit of the doubt that it is in the book and that the book is a source satisfying WP:RS, then it is still not "multiple." Advocates of keeping bear the burden of obtaining a few of the books shown in the Google Books search and improving the article. (edited to mention Google Books search)Edison 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My keep argument was not in the least based on "I've heard of it". It looked like something out of Harry Potter when I first saw it at AFD. My Keep is based on a (fairly brief) bit of research that establishes it, as per my arguments above. Pedro |  Chat  19:41, 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. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hudsons Coffee[edit]

Hudsons Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First a speedy, then a prod, now an afd. Apparent advertisement for a company with no evidence of notability. Jakew 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first sentence is fine. Unfortunately that's the only good part. The rest of the text is entirely dedicated to this firm's offerings. (Actually, to quote from the article, it describes the "exciting options" on offer, a phrase that reeks of marketing departments.) Exciting or otherwise, these are only of interest to potential customers (and then only just). But encyclopaedic information is strangely absent. Where is such information as who founded it and when? What's their history? What's their legal status (privately held, etc)? Annual revenue? Number of employees? What controversies (if any) have they been involved with? It seems that these facts were overlooked in the "excitement" over all these wonderful "options"... Jakew 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the option you're looking for is called {{rewrite}} or any of the other helpful cleanup tags to be found at WP:TM. FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. In the absence of notability, there is no reason to have an article at all. Jakew 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns that "the rest of the text is dedicates to this firm's offering" or "encyclopaedic information is strangely absent" for things like founding, history, legal status, revenue are not ones of notability per se, but rather further information to improve the article. Sorry, but unless you're disputing the assertions of notability above, then I'm going to say you're barking up the wrong tree. The things you're asking for are not deletion concerns, they're article improvement concerns. So again, you want something from WP:TM instead of AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't explain my thoughts clearly. In my comment above (of 21:53), I was addressing Iridescent, who did not understand how this can be seen as an advert. Thus, I showed that it contains information useful only for advertising, and I gave examples of the kind of encyclopaedic content that might make the article worth rescuing (the presence and ability of third-party sources to answer these questions would also help establish notability). The presence of the former and the absence of the latter make this article merely an advertisement. And per WP:CORP, if no notable content would remain after removing advertising, then the article is a deletion concern. Jakew 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I noted the way to get the content fixed in such a case is not deletion, but rather seeking improvement though other means. I'm sorry if this comes across as offensive, but AFD is not cleanup, and I'm not sure why you're so resistant to the idea that there were other options. Even the section of WP:CORP suggests cleanup as the first order of business. Are you arguing that you shouldn't do things like look for sources to further expand the article? Me, I'd have checked, found that, and said to myself "Why here's a fine article to use to improve this page" and if I didn't feel like improving it myself, left a note on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 12:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed the "array of exciting options" line, now needs to be expanded to include more than what's on the menu. CitiCat ♫ 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbromage's comment and also Golfcam's as it is notable in that region.--JForget 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete What's on the menu is not notable. There is nothing whatsoever in the article to indicate any notability otherwise,But let's see what can be written from the sources listed above. DGG (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the most major coffee chains in Australia, and it's swimming in potential references. Rebecca 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - subject appears to be sufficiently notable. Addhoc 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:30, 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 keep. John254 03:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wicca[edit]

Christian Wicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, poorly referenced. What's next, an article for Islamic Atheism or Pastafarian Buddhism? TotesBoats 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's misrepresentation to say that it's unreferenced. There's references, and external links. Maybe it's poorly referenced, but then it needs a cleanup, not deletion. Recurring dreams 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment. Agree it's poorly referenced and needs cleanup, but I'm not (yet) prepared to call for retention or deletion. I looked at the page history and the talk page comments. It appears as if the article was plagued with POV pushing and original research in the past. Some effort was made to clean it up but this has stalled. I've tagged the article for lack of references and citations. Dbromage [Talk] 11:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --RucasHost 12:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Per WP:JNN, "simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable". Dbromage [Talk] 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an easy one. There are verifiable sources online. Every page needing cleanup does not deserve deletion. Nutty as it is, it deserves a page. MarkinBoston 16:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. I'm suspicious that the article relies so heavily on a gaudy looking paperback, going so far as to link to its page on amazon.com; but that can be fixed. Ichormosquito 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. I'd never heard of it, but the sources cited establish notability and verifiability. Referenced well enough to survive deletion, needs serious cleanup.-Fagles 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MarkinBoston, Fagles and Ichormosquito. Oh, I've heard of it; there was a controversy in the Episcopal church a few years ago about this. It is referenced, albeit poorly. Bearian 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm beginning to get the impression of an aggressive campaign to delete articles relating to small religions, which is basically antiencyclopedic. The subject matter is inherently notable, regardless of the quality of the article. RandomCritic 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please note that the two editors calling for deletion (above) have now been formally linked in an allegation of sock-puppetry. If proved, this does indeed seem a highly suspicious campaign against an article (and related articles) which the majority do consider notable. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article needs more, and better references. Creating this article without utilizing Original Research is going to be hard work. Remaining neutral in the process is also going to be hard work. None the less the article can be cleaned up/improved on. This conflux of religions has popped up in several Christian denominations. It has been fought over in several Wiccan, Pagan, and Neo-pagan organizations. The article will no doubt be subject to a semi-perpetual edit war. None the less that doesn't mean that the subject matter is without merit. (I also agree with Random Critic that there is an effort underway to delete religious material that is not part of the popular culture from Wikipedia.)(Close with Speedy Keep would be appropriate here.)jonathon 20:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable, with alright research. Salvatore22 22:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article may need cleanup, but has encycolpedic value, and to my knowledge, there is no reason for deletion. It does not meet qualifications for deletion and only has two arguments for deletion, neither user has replied back. Sephiroth storm 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I regard the content as theological nonsense, but looks as if it describes a genuine POV held by a certain body of people. Accordingly it is encyclopaedic and should be retained. If there is an issue of ther being edit wars, let them fight it out! If there are differing views of what is the correct view, the best solution is to present both, provided they can both be adequately referenced. This articel is about a syncretic belief; accordingly it is inevitable that views will differ as to how much to take from one side and how much from another. Peterkingiron 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Early Anglo-Saxon sources such as the "lacnunga" show the mixing of folk magic and Christian symbols. The sources available in limited views in Google Book Search [21] describe "Christian Wicca" as a 1990's California online thing. But they DO describe it, indicating that it probably satisfies WP:N. From the limited/snip views it is hard to judge how numerous its adherents are, so the "weak" keep. Orthodox/catholic/evangelical/mainstream protestant Christianity cannot be expected to take kindly to adding Wiccan bits to their doctrines and liturgies, and would find them heretical, but syncretism has a long tradition of the mixing of reeligions. A likelihood of POV pushing or editorial disputes is not a reason to delete an article. Edison 18:37, 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 redirect to Hypnotize (album). Kurykh 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicinity of Obscenity[edit]

Vicinity of Obscenity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is without sources and also completely fails the notability criteria as it hasn't been performed by any artists, won any awards or been covered in sufficient independent works. It is also pretty redundant to the main album article, Hypnotize (album). Seraphim Whipp 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hypnotize (album). There doesn't appear to be independent coverage of the single itself. It hasn't been performed by any artists? What about the artists who recorded it? --Onorem♠Dil 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Any other artists ;). Seraphim Whipp 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree. This article appears incomplete and will probably go better if redirected to the completed album. TheInfinityZero 15:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hypnotize (album). The song isn't notable enouh for it its own article, but redirecting it to the album does no harm. Sasha Callahan 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason that the other singles get their own articles? There's a whole "chronology"; they seem to have released so many "singles". There must be some material on the infamous lyrics of this song, if anything. ALTON .ıl 07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response. I'm guessing the reason is that they have been released independently as singles so they have charted. I was actually quite impressed by Lonely Day because by the time I had found it, I'd already looked at this article and another that was in poor shape. I did look for sources discussing the lyrics but I could only find forum type, song meaning websites. Seraphim Whipp 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea. Yeah, I looked through the other one that is only one or two lines long. But then again, even if an article is of particular crap quality, if it's notable it's gotta stay. I have no idea about this, so we'll see how it turns out. ALTON .ıl 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing, I think this one fails the notability criteria outlined by WP:MUSIC#Songs. It isn't a particular special song for any reason as it has won no awards/been nominated, hasn't been released as a charting single and has no sources or chance of any ever being found. It's a shame because I thought someone reviewer would at least have written about the interesting lyrics. Seraphim Whipp 09:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No support for keeping the article. The only reason for creating a redirect is for searching purposes and this title is not a conceivable search term. I will fix DMB page. TerriersFan 13:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack (System of a Down song)[edit]

This completely fails the notability criteria for songs, it has no sources (it did have one source but I took the most information and merged it easily into the main album article.) This is another reason for deletion as this article is redundant to the main album article which contains the same information. The only information which is different, is unreferenced, POV-bordering and is just one line. Seraphim Whipp 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Hypnotize (album). Dbromage [Talk] 10:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. May I ask why? I don't think any sources could ever be found for this, that would allow it to stand on it's own. Seraphim Whipp 11:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect - Not a single, not a notable song in its own right. Just change the line at Attack's disambig page to read ""Attack", a song from System of a Down's Hypnotize album" or some such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 14:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tarc's rationale, a redirect only from the disambig page of AttackJForget 00:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sane[edit]

Keep Sane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is based on "facts" from Myspace - "facts" that I could not find. Nevertheless, Myspace is not a reliable source. I could not find other sources supporting the content in this article, so it fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC. I think "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" fits in here too. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 09:58, 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. — TKD::Talk 10:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pussycats[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pussycats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article also fails WP:MUSIC - no sources desribing the release of this single, or even, the name. I could not find a reliable source to support this article, which means that this article also fails WP:NOTABILITY. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus with no over-riding policy reasons to delete. TerriersFan 13:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nate[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB Hu12 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The reference backing up that claim looks to be (on the Altavista Babelfish translation of the page) an ICT news cite that just recycles media releases. Dbromage [Talk] 10:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the major internet portals in South Korea, and there are independant sources to verify its popularity ([22], [23]). There is sufficient evidence to refute the nominator's claim that it fails notability guidelines. PC78 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being a significant corporation, and what's with all the extra AfDs there on the side that don't have anything to do with this one? --UsaSatsui 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that AFD box uses some kind of wildcard search, and as such, dredges up anything with "Nate" in the title. --Agamemnon2 10:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 20 MILLION - Fosnez 15:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty poor argument for notability. 20 million isn't even notable enough to have an article. (and WP:BIG)--UsaSatsui 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a popular web portal with a notable business behind it. Italiavivi 19:58, 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 merge all into SK Group. - KrakatoaKatie 06:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SK Holdings[edit]

SK Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article appears to heavily maintained by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to SK Related Articles. There is no reason for the creation multiple stub articles when they can be merged into the main Article SK Group.

I am also nominating the following related be merged or deleted for the same:

Hu12 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to SK Group and check for COI. Dbromage [Talk] 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Dbromage. PC78 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Note that such a remedy will make Template:SK Group useless, and that should be deleted. MER-C 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is every reason to create separate articles when the companies are individually notable in their sectors, as it facilitates accurate categorisation. The fact that one person has had to create all these articles is a manifestation of systemic bias. The SK Group is a $75.8 billion entity ranked 98th on the Fortune Global 500, making it larger than many American groups with bucketfuls of articles. Postlebury 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if thoroughly cleaned up, and merge all to SK Group. This is apparently a group of businesses traded on a major stock exchange, which would appear to meet WP:CORP. But the quality of the prose is absolutely vile: With Korea’s largest market share in both sectors, SK is emerging as an enterprise leader in the global marketplace. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all How on earth can the nominator think one of the world's largest companies fails WP:CORP? Golfcam 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the subjects are notable, however if the articles were redirected towards the group article for now, we wouldn't be losing much sourced content. Addhoc 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all until secondary sources are included and COI removed per Dbromage. Addhoc 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as SK Group. Articles are woefully small, and it smacks of spam. Also, have a word with the creator! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Separate articles may attract contributions from readers with interests in different business sectors, and are necessary for categorisation purposes. Brandon97 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are all multi-billion dollar companies, and there is no rule against articles about subsidiary companies, which are very common. Piccadilly 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All on grounds of non-notability WP:Corp per Hu12. Subsidiary companies do not have any notabilty in their own right, and should be merged into SK Holdings, a stock exchange listed company. The alternative is to give the green light to the creation of lots of other non-notable subsidiary artices such as SK Pizzas, SK Dry Cleaners, and SK Realtors etc etc. --Gavin Collins 18:11, 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 deleted by Coredesat per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topher Villafane. WjBscribe 23:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HollyWood East[edit]

HollyWood East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film not meeting the criteria of WP:MOVIE WebHamster 09:28, 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chey Tae-won[edit]

Chey Tae-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:BIO,Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to SK Related Articles Hu12 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, a quick google search suggests that there are enough sources out there for the subject to meet WP:BIO - seems he was jailed for fraud, something this mess of an article neglects to mention. If kept, this article needs some serious cleanup. PC78 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G11. I'm not deleting it immediately because of the weak keep above, but the article seems a massive advertisement of this person. Nihiltres(t.l) 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11. Notable or not, this is blatant advertising. Dbromage [Talk] 12:12, 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. — TKD::Talk 10:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Mother Geeta Sacred Song[edit]

Peace Mother Geeta Sacred Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has severe NPOV issues, and reads like ad copy for a commercial website, which is the only link provided. Lack of NPOV makes it hard to tell if article passes WP:N Bfigura (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TKD::Talk 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, barring a comprehensive re-write, with reliable third-party references & evidence of notability, which I don't think this article currently has. At the moment, this doesn't really make much sense at all, although I like this line: "The organizations also provide shamanic & healing training for a low price." Surely you can't put a price on shamanic training? --kateshortforbob 10:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment hard to tell how notable she is as google just brings up an awful lot of products for sale and articles which are clearly adverts. I have NPOV'ed the article a bit.Merkinsmum 11:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an advert to me. No refs, no notability, no nuttin'. MarkinBoston 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of GURPS books[edit]

List of GURPS books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list of books is little more than a publishers catalogue, and as such is prohibited advertising or other spam without relevant content per WP:Spam. As most of the articles about the books listed have not been created or are about to be deleted if they have, they are ideal AfD candidates. The list fails to demonstrate notabilty per Wikipedia:Notability (books). --Gavin Collins 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly keep: as for it being "spam", it could be said of any article containing references to present books or products. Moreover, this article lists all GURPS books, many of them out of print, so it can hardly be spam (I'd be quite glad if I could find a copy of GURPS Conan, for instance). As for the structure of the article itself, Wikipedia is also a reference work, and an article like this one is not dissimilar in its function from (don't gasp) List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. --Goochelaar 11:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a detail: I am not sure about "most of the articles about the books listed have been or are about to be deleted". The page is desolately rich in redlinks, but the articles were never written: apparently somebody put in too many hopeful links. Could I see the deletion logs for the deleted articles? --Goochelaar 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are correct - none have been deleted, just not created, and I have amended the AfD accordingly. For instance, articles have not been created for the many books listings, such as this classic: GURPS Castle Falkenstein: The Ottoman Empire. Honestly, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this list or any of these books: perhaps the publisher's own website, Amazon or Ebay would be better. Notabilty yet to come. --Gavin Collins 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GURPS is certainly notable, and a list of its sourcebooks seems important for encyclopedic coverage (more for GURPS than other RPGs, even, as the different books describe entirely different settings for the game), and since it's a rather long list, I think having it separate from the main article is appropriate. Gavin, your comment seems to imply that you think this article was created by SJG themselves to sell books, which (as Goochelaar said) doesn't make sense for a list that includes out-of-print items. Even if they were all in print, though, there's no reason we shouldn't cover a notable subject simply because the objects in question are things one can buy, as long as the article isn't written in a promotional style (which this one isn't). Pinball22 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot prove the publisher created these articles himself, but the list and the articles include an extensive web of links to the publisher, the publisher's website and cross referencing with related GURPS products. This indicates that the list was created as part of a larger promotional campaign in contravention of WP:SPAM. More damingly, note that some books listed have yet to be published; this suggests either a fan has inside knowledge or this list is being run like a product catalogue, which Wikipedia is not. --Gavin Collins 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just looked up some of the things marked as forthcoming, and they're mentioned on the website, and thus don't require any inside information. None of it looks to me to be written in a particularly catalog-ish style, and I think links to the publisher's website, since it has lots of information about the books, are logical things to include in the articles. Basically, while I have no proof that no one from SJG has worked on this article, I can't see anything about it that looks different from what I would expect of an article written by a neutral party, and therefore it doesn't matter whether they did or not. Pinball22 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Created as part of a larger promotional campaign..."??? It's much more likely a result of (multiple) fans of GURPS and/or people involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games (that is, after all, one of the members' goals, i.e. collecting and organizing information on role-playing games). Please assume good faith. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gavin, perhaps you are not aware of the large body of fans and players of GURPS and its settings and extensions. There are lots of people who writes and publishes on the web self-produced settings, adventures, handbooks. In a way, they freely advertise for SJG. There is a following somewhat similar to the one supporting Linux, with people happy to contribute material freely (see unofficial pages indexed at the official website, just to begin). The publisher itself has no need, so to say, to spam anything. --Goochelaar 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right, I am not aware of any fanbase, in fact there is just no evidence at all to suggest this list of books has any following, like numbers sold or readership numbers. However, if Talk:List of GURPS books is anything to go by, there is evidence that this list generates little to no interest, other than as a product catalogue for keeping tabs on product numbers. --Gavin Collins 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly wondering why anybody would care about the fanbase over the books, but if you're curious, you can find some numbers. Me, I don't see what's the bother, it's not like I'm going to buy out Steve Jackson Games. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point you're trying to make here, Gavin, with your latest comment? Activity (or lack of) on an article's talk page is irrelevant to the notability of GURPS (which I think is pretty clearly established). GURPS is notable, and this list is a legitimate content fork of a notable subject. This list could be included in the main GURPS article, but is long and, hence, is suitable for a content fork. I've had this argument (and am apparently still having it) over another list. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Note: Having written this and reread other comments here again, this is essentially the same argument that FrozenPurpleCube put forth in his Keep remark below. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by the "keeping tabs on product numbers" bit... are we looking at the same list? The product numbers aren't even on it. Pinball22 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gosh, yes, and the General Motors article has an extensive web of links, not only to the manufacturer's website, but to its Canadian operation, to its European operation, to its official blogs, and several other related links, including to related product lines. Do you suggest that that must be some corporate plot as well? On the contrary, this falls into the very definition of acceptable external links, and it would be strange if the article on any entity or product failed to include a link to its official website. The implication that a practice that Wikipedia guidelines encourage is not only sinister but a violation is staggering.  RGTraynor  21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow. That's quite an accusation. Why don't we ask the creator of the article? I notice that he hasn't been informed of this AfD. -Chunky Rice 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would be User:RJHall, who doesn't seem to obviously be affiliated with SJG, but is an active user whose pattern of edits indicate a wide variety of interests including other RPGs. I sincerely doubt he's a shill. And of course, if anybody is curious, they can inquire with Steve Jackson games themselves. [24] has all sorts of links. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well put. Rray 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This article, although about a series I haven't heard of, appears to be notable. On the other hand, the article also appears to be filled with a lot of listcruft. I think the article should be kept, but perhaps a little bit more information to balance out all the links. TheInfinityZero 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly not spam. It may be approipriate to reduce some of the content and merge with a parent article. Artw 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with categories for the notable books. I fail to see the need to list every book published about a topic. Imagine how long "List of Chess books" would be. We're not a book index Corpx 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your position reflects an ignorance of the basic concepts here. Chess is a game for which a wide variety of publishers have produced books. Why? Because anybody who wants to can make a book about Chess. GURPS is a trademarked roleplaying game, as such, there is a far more limited publication potential. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it would be legal to produce compatible books, only SJG can license the use of the trademark, and as far as it goes, the number issues you raise are hypothetical, not actual. You might as well argue List of space travelers by name should be deleted because it's an unbounded list. That said, there is an article that covers one aspect of Chess and the books written for it. Chess endgame literature. FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, these are essentially game guides? I think that strengthens my point even more Corpx 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, GURPS is a pen-and-paper RPG, so they're the rules/settings/suggestions for play. Pinball22 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, are you familiar with this subject at all? Because your statements are so off-base that I'm baffled that you'd bring them up. Are you claiming this article is a guide to the game? No, it is not. Nor is GURPS. Are you equating these books with something like the Official Final Fantasy VII Strategy Guide? Again, they are not, but to show that would probably best be done by your own eyes. This is more like List of Final Fantasy media actually. But really, I wonder exactly what perspective you have on this subject. It doesn't seem to be informed at all. Your point (which fails to note the existing lists of books by some criteria that have been linked above) is rather weakened when it doesn't seem to be cognizant of the actual situation. FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that the whole point of AFDs? So that non-experts can judge inclusion based on notability guidelines? Most of these books dont have notability on their own and I still fail to see why should be indexing them. Corpx 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been a requirement of lists that the individual members of that list satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, only that the subject as a whole does. -Chunky Rice 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the purpose of an AFD is to determine consensus for inclusion, which has no direct relation to experts or notability. It certainly behooves anybody who comments in an AFD to at least have a basic comprehension of the subject and of existing Wikipedia articles, but neither expertise nor non-expertise is determinative. And the purpose of indexing them is the same reason we include lists of books by an author, or in a series. Including the information provides Wikipedia readers with desirable information about the subject. In a sense, it's really no different than listing say, the songs on a CD by a major artist. Or films in a movie series. Or songs on a movie soundtrack. Not including the information would leave a large hole in the coverage. FrozenPurpleCube 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Another bizarre nomination for deletion that does nothing to improve the Wikipedia. This isn't spam or advertising and shouldn't be deleted as such. Rray 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of the list (GURPS) is clearly notable, as others have noted. The assertion that this list constitutes spam is also unfounded. There's nothing remotely spammy about the content of the list. -Chunky Rice 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Oh come now, this is absurd. A list is, well, a list. Many lists on Wikipedia run into the thousands, and contain no more information than a bare, well, listing of the pertinent type. If there's a WP:SPAM allegation, I'd be happy for the nom to supply evidence to that effect other than the absurd logic of "Commercial company" + "List of its products" = "Blatant advertising."  RGTraynor  21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are numerous redlinks so turning it into a category is not an equal option, informationcontentwise. Even as a list, this article serves to illustrate the breadth of GURPSdom. --Agamemnon2 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very suitable list for people who are interested in GURPS. RandomCritic 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and snowball this. GURPS is highly notable, the supplements deserve mention. --UsaSatsui 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube, others. Also, nominator's assumption that his other Afd nomnations for Gurps books will all go through leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth. Edward321 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notable game system with widely-published supplements. The list provides organizational elements that would likely be lost with a category and includes many publications that do not yet have articles. It provides a comprehensive listing for people (like me) who enjoy GURPS. — RJH (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GURPS is notable, and a list of books in GURPS (a bounded set) is an appropriate addition. However, as the list of books for GURPS is very large, it's better to have in a separate article. Also, a general reminder, please remember to assume good faith. It's really frustrating to have one's good faith work labelled as spam. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having a list article like this is a good way to keep Wikipedia clear of content-free per-book gamecruft articles. Percy Snoodle 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shadowrun linked to GURPS Technomancer because it is notable for being very similar to Shadowrun. On that page there was a discussion on whether to delete it and redirect to List of GURPS books. If you also delete the List of GURPS books, there is nothing left. So that's two levels of lost information for what? I for one find RPG information on wikipedia interesting.
  • Keep per basically all of the above. A list of GURPS books is verifiable, notable and a relatively limited set. Does not resemble spam in any way. Chaz Beckett 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A game system that's been around for over 20 years and continues to generate interest and content is notable. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♫ 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PERI GmbH[edit]

PERI GmbH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability through third-party sources. I was wary about speedying it outright, so seeking opinions of others. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep Can't see any justification for speedy - asserts notability. Seems a reasonably big multinational looking at Google (PERI US, PERI UK, PERI DE etc.), but wether we can get any independent sources is different - I would assume there must be some trade reviews that could be used as references but couldn't see any in a quick search. Agree with the advert tag, and needs a re-write, but it does seem to pass WP:N.Pedro |  Chat  08:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep
hello hello, I am engineer,
let give you a crash course in companies within the construction industry
If we were to compare the automotive industry with the construction industry
Then Ford Motor Company would be as to Automobile, as PERI GmbH as to Formwork.
I see no reason why this article should be deleted or the article EFCO Corp. (leading american formwork company) If anything maybe this article should be reviewed by a third party. If all construction company articles should be deleted then I call for all automotive companies to be treated in the same way.
--Lumber Jack 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ACS (Automatic Climbing System) was PERI's milestone in self-climbing technology. It is used to form high buildings without a crane. At the beginning of the 80s, PERI was at the forefront of using aluminium in the construction business. This trend soon won over sceptics as people on the job sites quickly realized that a 20% weight reduction is a big advantage, because striking has to be done by hand after concreting
need to be rewritten and reference, even if it contains worthwhile facts. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major global company in its field. Golfcam 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is a obvious decision,

I will remove the deletion tag from the article --Lumber Jack 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nominated by SchuminWeb. I checked out this article on the German version of Wikipedia to see if independent references had been provided in the hope they had been lost in transation to the English edition, but was disapointed to see none and that exactly the same article has been replicated. Without independent evidence of notability (which links to the company's own websites are not), I would recomend speedy deletion on grounds that the Peacock language marks this as a public relations exercise designed to promote the company (in at least 2 languages), and as such fails WP:NOSPAM prohibition. --Gavin Collins 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, obviously notable. ELIMINATORJR 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheedur Rahman[edit]

Shaheedur Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no references TotesBoats 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Marginal, but appears to meet WP:BIO ("Competitors who have played in a fully professional league") and Cricinfo is a relatively reliable source. Most pre-WWW data on Cricinfo comes from Wisden Cricketers' Almanack so is verifiable. Dbromage [Talk] 08:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal? He played two one day internationals against Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 1986. A link is also given to his page on Cricket Archive now, which pretty much everyone accepts as definitive..Nick mallory 10:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my comment above on the basis of the revisions. Dbromage [Talk] 10:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 08:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 08:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Precedent is that all first class cricketers are notable. Thin Arthur 08:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reference (to [cricinfo.com] is there, but is easily missed as it is at the bottom of the infobox. The Cricinfo imformation shows that he has played in one-day internationals for Bangladesh, which makes him definitely notable. JH (talk page) 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:BIO because he's played for his country (which is the #9 ranked country in the world). Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played two One Day Internationals for Bangladesh. Did the nominator do any research at all? The references are in the info box. Nick mallory 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nick mallory and myself have added details and references that should remove any doubt about the notability of this person. Arman Aziz 10:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep An international sportsman in one of the worlds most popular sports is inherently notable. Andrew nixon 11:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep due to non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacn (electronic)[edit]

Bacn (electronic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Personally I never heard of it and the sources aren't that great either WP:NFT 1redrun Talk 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO and lack of reliable sources. Dbromage [Talk] 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Dbromage said ... richi 09:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found this a useful information when I tried to look it up after hearing it in a podcastmalaquias 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is full of things i've never heard of but i don't think they should be deleted on that critira alone.WP:NEO seems to suggest that Articles on neologisms are sometimes appropriate. But I concide that this is a new term and that it may fall rapidly out of use and may not be appropriate according to WP:NEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I guess I didn't make it quite clear which of the above was my point. Obviously there are lots of things on Wikipedia I don't know. But in this case it's a subject I think I'm somewhat familiar with this and the aparrent lack of reliable sources lead me to belive it was either made up or non-notable (as of yet). Admitedly I didn't think of WP:NEO when I nominated it but I guess that's what it comes down to. It's a neologism that hasn't been esablished (yet) [and by all chances never will] and shouldn't be included. 1redrun Talk 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blog-only neologism, something made up in a podcast one day, and essentially promotional for the blog. If this catches on in a year or two (possible, but doubtful -- we used to call it "fram", friendly spam, and see how well that developed), then it will be possible to have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The following is taken from the Washington Post blog item linked on the page: "The term was actually coined just this past weekend at PodCamp Pittsburgh 2. " That's dated Aug. 21, 2007. I think we can wait to see if the term takes. If and when it happens, a page can be created. MarkinBoston 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • mmm, bacon - damn diet... er, delete as neologism. If it's ... not quite a week old, it sure as heck ain't notable yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Besides, any bac'n that's been sitting out since 21 August needs binned. ☺ --Ssbohio 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. -- Vary | Talk 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See today's artice in the Toronto Star:[26]. If a term gains attention in such a mainstream audience, perhaps it has already made a cultural impact that should be documented. The article in the star could also be used for more reliable secondary sources. --75.153.117.26 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - I was the one that recently (unknowingly) reintroduced the term on the "...may be:"/Redirect page. If bacn is deemed not article worthy, maybe it can keep its one line definition on that page and/or give it its own entry inside the spam page (merge). Tbone2001 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think it should be merged with Spam. Tiddly-Tom 11:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Erik Warmelink 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted, it's clearly a neologism, but I think the large press attention it's received (NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) makes the story around the word noteworthy. schark 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. " The articles such as the one from the Chicago Tribune and the Toronto Star do just that. The article about the origin of the term and about the phenomenon it describes makes it more than a dictionary definition. (Besides I have wanted a term for stuff I once requested or agreed to that still comes to my mailbox and clutters it until I delete it unread). Edison 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - term getting much attention and press. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very recent neologism with no obvious usage outside "trendmongers" (i.e. people who just want to spread a neologism for its coolness, including the nine-days'-wonder media sources that will probably never use it again). 86.131.94.67 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge - I think this belongs on the Spam page, rather than warranting its own. It's received enough attention to be included there. Tkrpata 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wired Magazine and NPR coverage convinced me. Italiavivi 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It was mentioned in The Times and wanted to find out more. Useful article. 84.9.147.9 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, In addition to the above pro arguments, the term has gained wide coverage in the specialist marketing community/media in the context of the best practices associated with transactional messages and emails. Golf fan 07:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, While it is admittedly a neologism and thus runs afoul of WP:NEO, the term is already in surprisingly wide usage both online and now in print and other media. On a practical level, if the article is deleted, it will only a matter of time before some well-meaning person says "Hey, there's no article in Wikipedia on bacn, I'll create one!", in which case, this entire discussion will occur again. Rightly or wrongly, people are turning to Wikipedia as a source for information about current topics and expect to find things like 'bacn' here. My 2 cents. Dyork 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I looked it up here after reading about it at NPR. With all the secondary media sources, I think it is acceptable under WP:NEO as long as it stays sourced (as it is now). --Ginkgo100talk 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into Black Jews. - KrakatoaKatie 05:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish African-American entertainers[edit]

List of Jewish African-American entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per all the other religion-ethnicity-nationality-occupation intersection listcruft. This one has all four! Dbromage [Talk] 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Fuller YMP[edit]

Brad Fuller YMP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom. This should be probably speedied for no context, but I'm just doing this as procedure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per lack of coverage from sources Corpx 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Hooperbloob 04:21, 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. — Black Falcon (Talk) 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Wolanin[edit]

Whitney Wolanin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a seventeen-year-old singer-songwriter who released some albums through a record label started by her father. There seems to be no evidence of any chart impact or other achievements except through a couple of obscure trade magazines. This is borderline at best, I'd say. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In the course of doing research to pave the way for an AfD, I found enough non-trivial media coverage to meet WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I think I've managed to remove most if not all of the puffery (check an earlier version of the article). I did raise questions about the validity of FMQB's charts (I always thought that publication was more of a tip sheet) but even without chart hits, she still passes. I've also tried to balance out the article by including that it's her father's record label, and her lack of sales. While I don't think she really deserves an article, she passes WP:MUSIC so I feel I must argue to keep it. Precious Roy 14:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Calton
  • Keep - I also think it does pass the WP:MUSIC guidelines for an article. Sintaku 07:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references in the article seem to be independent reliable sources, and there's more than enough of them to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty 15:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Internationalist (album). ELIMINATORJR 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindley Street (song)[edit]

Hindley Street (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable song, never released, never covered by independent sources. WP:MUSIC for the record. Giggy\Talk 06:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatchford Trophy[edit]

The Hatchford Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As an unofficial family-hosted event, this appears to be non-notable. Alksub 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable family event. Giggy\Talk 06:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having a few friends round is not notable, even if you claim they are. Nuttah68 08:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even having a few former professional cricketers to an unofficial match does not make it notable. Thin Arthur 08:51, 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 all. — TKD::Talk 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of main teachers from My Gym Partner's a Monkey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of main teachers from My Gym Partner's a Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a spun-off duplicate of parts of List_of_characters_from_My_Gym_Partner's_a_Monkey (without pictures), and therefore should be deleted. There is no real reason to spin off a character list multiple times when it can be reorganized on the main page. MSJapan 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional noms for same reason:

  • Delete all. The pages have a lot of non-free images without fair use rationale too. Dbromage [Talk] 06:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. For what it's worth, this particular series has been a little bit troublesome. For starters, these forks have been created in the past, and have gone thru AFD, and then speedy. Secondly, List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey is under semi-protect for a particular reason, and these forks will circumvent those reasons. See that page edit history. Yngvarr 11:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The sections are too small to justify the pageforks and would circumvent the semi-protect on the main article as cited above. --treelo talk 12:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - This article appears slightly unprofessional for Wikipedia. Perhaps it could merge into the show's main character list? TheInfinityZero 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - This article is redundant, and has no reason to exist. The editor who created it has a history of this. They find that their edits are always reverted or deleted for many reasons, so they create these fork pages to try and fly under the radar. These forks can gain quite a following if allowed to remain, and can become cesspools of cruft and misinformation. This is an attempt to escape the scrutiny of the editing community. -- Elaich talk 13:48, 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 Speedy delete, G1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy neuro programming[edit]

Energy neuro programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research/pseudoscience. Alksub 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 23:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahamian Americans[edit]

List of Bahamian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of Cuban Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jamaican Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listed separately (as Caribbean nations) for same reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination). and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans seeing as these are more nationality-nationality intersections than nationality-ethnicity intersections. Bulldog123 04:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I fail to see any sort of notability for these intersections by race/nationality Corpx 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom links and as trivial listcruft. VanTucky (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all this is what categories are for---DarkTea© 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Mad Jack 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all - encyclopedic and needed for our users. Contribute constructively, not destructively, to our project, and do not WP:POINT disruptively propose this article for deletion again, thanks. I see that the "delete page regulars" have made their appearance, but they shall not destroy valuable content in such an arbitrary manner. Badagnani 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if indeed categories cover the same content, what's the added value of lists? Chensiyuan 04:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look through a few. You'll see they are footnoted, are broken down by occupation, and often contain additional information that cannot be transmitted in the form of a category. Badagnani 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to keep asking questions, but I want to make an informed decision -- surely the test for keep must go beyond usefulness? What is the real test (apart from showing me a WP policy link) -- thanks. Chensiyuan 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnicity-occupation intersections are usually considered trivial overcategorizations. There is no further information in these lists. Bulldog123 08:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, you should say "Ethnicity-occupation intersections are usually considered trivial overcategorizations in my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends, the 'delete-page regulars'." Badagnani 08:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would keep these categories, as they are very useful for anyone who is interested in studying diasporas.Freedomwarrior 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are keeping the categories. Bulldog123 08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "we" you're referring to and what makes you the arbiter of what "we" will keep or delete? We do not forget that you are personally responsible for the very damaging deletion (and failure to upmerge) dozens, if not hundreds of valuable categories. A little more humility, and a little less presumptuousness, on your part is in order. Badagnani 08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for List of Cuban Americans - they are group with a strong community, many of whom do self-define in this manner, and who are linked by their common background. -- Beardo 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Freedomwarrior. Pia 07:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Cuban Americans their achievements make this self evident El Jigue 208.65.188.149 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, there is no consensus that lists by nationality, ethnicity, or race should be deleted, except perhaps among a number of AfD regulars who do not represent the consensus of Wikipedia editors; nor is there any policy against them. Second of all, America, being a nation largely of immigrants and their descendants, has an extensive history of people who consider their ethnicity or national origin highly significant, and not a "trivial overcategorization". Thirdly, while this argument apparently won't sway the nominator, Bahamian American, Jamaican American, and especially Cuban American are all notable categories of people (and Wikipedia categories as well), many of whom do consider their ethnic or national background extremely important. DHowell 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all ethnic groups are notable, and this includes "hypenated-Americans"; the definition is possible because it can be self-identification without use having to worry about whether true or false--we're about V, not truth, as I recall; people placing themselves in an ethic group are a close relationship--not as close a biological parentage, but perhaps as close as geography or college attended; lists like these serve a useful function, and so on, as discussed at all the other Afds. I would say that every individual one of them being proposed for deletion here so far is justified and keepable, even the smaller ones like this. Usefulness is a valid reason for lists. DGG (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the justifications for keep provided above outweigh those for delete. Chensiyuan 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable notion. Classification not POV. `'Míkka 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per DHowell. HeyNow10029 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's overcategorization to divide people by occupation and ethnic origin on separate pages, as categories would force you to. It's just common sense to do it on a single page, as this list does. List of Cuban Americans is particularly well annotated. Kappa 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cuban-Americans are notable and their research can be helpful. I learned about Mercedes De Acosta from her listing under famous Cuban-Americans and recently read her our-of-print book "Here Lies The Heart." I would not otherwise have learned about her.Mig 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death by dancing[edit]

Death by dancing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a rather non-notable band, whose only publishing was on an apparently non-notable label. Someguy1221 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:BAND with no recordings or independent sources. Giggy\Talk 06:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. No assertion of notability at all. Sasha Callahan 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article fails to show any notability of this band, breaking the WP:BAND requirement. TheInfinityZero 15:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem that noteworthy.Salvatore22 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

thank you for keeping lisa, you all deleted HereAndNow.Net, I am glad you atleast kept lisa from that part of history. Lisa and HereAndNow.net affected a few thousand americans, it was one of the first multi stream sites out there that WAS NOT PORN!!!


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♫ 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Batey[edit]

Appears to fail notability guidelines. ghits: [27] & [28] & [29] NMChico24 03:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. WebHamster 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the recent changes, I believe this Wikipedia article is elegible to be a great addition to Wikipedia. Skwralphy 16:30, 24 August 2007 (EST)— Skwralphy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Lisa is one of the first (and most loved) group-livecasters. In my POV that alone is not enought relavance. MovGP0 09:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First 24/7 webstream-lifecast (prior to Jennicam), first group-lifecast, first streaming own sleeping, and first livecast with a cam from a bot (the last one has minor relevance to me). MovGP0 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MovGP0 has !voted both Delete and Keep, and has grayed out various comments which s/he did not consider to be "important." I have un-grayed all but those of User:MovGP0. Please do not edit the comments of others. Edison 19:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm just not seeing the notability here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to reasons stated above--KingMorpheus 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This Afd page has been vandalized. One example is here. Brusegadi 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep - First, is Wikipedia merely a repository of information easily located with ghits? If so, what is the point? Please judge the article on its own merits. If references from Entertainment Weekly, Salon.com, and the Museum of Modern Art don't establish notability, I don't know what does. Second, her status as an innovator in the lifestreaming arena is not in dispute. She was the first cam girl to go 24/7 with streaming video. Please consult notability guidelines - "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On this basis alone, the entry is appropriate. --Viewmaster17 23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)— Viewmaster17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - EVERYTHING —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockOn0009 (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC) — RockOn0009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KeepStrong Delete - Per WP:NN and WP:RS. Brusegadi 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Per new citations. Brusegadi 06:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - For shenanigans. Speciate 01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Strong keep per both WP:NN and WP:RS. See above. Article meets notability guidelines for "significant coverage" with multiple "verifiable" and "reliable" sources "independent of the subject." --Viewmaster17 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)— Viewmaster17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • STRONG Keep, reasons stated above--mallred 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - See Viewmaster17's reasons. They are valid. References supplied on related wiki page should validate entry. If Anacam and Jennicam are valid wikipedia entries, surely an original cast member associated with hereandnow.net should be also. Wikidave676 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)— Wikidave676 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Oy, the sources. Salon.com is the only one that really pans out per WP:RS for establishing notability. Everything else is too peripheral or is a blog-type item. However, on the basis of the Salon mention, I think an argument can be mate that she's notable. Finally, I cannot let apparent !vote-stacking sway my opinion one way or the other. I'd like more/better sources, but Salon will preserve it for now. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not delete this only because of the shenanigans. Instead it would be fair to just don't count the votes or the users without further contributions or trying to manipulate. WP:RS is given. WP:NN depends how you interpret "widley known and recognized". I think that Batey is not so widley known, but like Jennicam she has made pioneering work in the field of web streaming entertainment. MovGP0 07:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no such thing like Strong Keep and Strong Delete - there is just keep and delete MovGP0 07:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC) -- I've greyed out what was not important. MovGP0 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I undid your graying out of comments other than your own. Edison 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Andrew Lenahan, I do not see the notability here. C.Fred points out that Salon.com is the only reliable source. WP:N requires substantial coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate long-term notability, I don't see this here. --Malcolmxl5 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note new citations: Le Monde, Institut national de l'audiovisuel, Cleveland Plain Dealer and N.O. Times Picayune. --Viewmaster17 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Entertainment weekly, Salon and 2 newspaper articles all meet WP:RS. I think those articles taken in combination meet significant coverage, and therefore category 1 of WP:N. Horrorshowj 08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage clearly satisfies WP:N. Edison 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While researching data streaming, a reference came up a few times that peeked my curiosity: 'Nekomimi_Lisa'. Not wanting to be side tracked, I did a quick C&P into Wikipedia and found a concise non-bloated definition on the page in question. Is this expeditious handling not Wikipedia's goal / commitment? N1popeye 07:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)— N1popeye (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. — TKD::Talk 10:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolo64[edit]

Tolo64 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't have any soources, doesn't meet WP:N, but asserts notability so I'm bringing it here. Enjoy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless that notability claim is backed up with a source, clearly doesn't meet notability requirement. Even with it, I'm not sure. eaolson 03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a source would do it, unless there's more than claimed. CitiCat ♫ 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC... not even close! WebHamster 09:37, 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 snowball keep (trust me, the keeps will pile on if you keep it open). Giggy\Talk 06:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magda's Funny Bits[edit]

Magda's Funny Bits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a 5 part clip show that was cancelled before the 5th part aired. The content of the show was all featured in other shows covered on Wikipedia. Also tagged for clean up since June 2006 The KZA 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Regardless of longevity (or lack thereof), it did receive substantial news coverage.[30] In fact it is also notable for being the subject of public debate as to why it wasn't cancelled sooner. To quote one of the news articles, "I'm sure Mr Packer is spinning in his grave given that Eddie McGuire hasn't yet pulled Magda's Funny Bits off air." Dbromage [Talk] 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shows on major channels, even lousy, short-lived ones, are notable. CitiCat ♫ 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've substantially rewritten the article and added references. Dbromage [Talk] 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbromage and CitiCat. Maxamegalon2000 05:15, 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 snowball keep Giggy\Talk 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God's Warriors[edit]

God's Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy-tagged as spam, but doesn't seem very spammy. Might even be notable, I think. Daniel Case 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But it doesn't assert notability! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability requirements (see this New York Times article, or this one from the Chicago Tribune, or this from the Denver Post, or....) -- MarcoTolo 03:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two of the above refs to the article. -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you forgot to sign your comment, Tawniz.  :-) — 05:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per MarcoTolo. Heavily promoted and reviewed (by media besides CNN). Wl219 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a notable program. Maxamegalon2000 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There were no references when nominated for AfD. There are now, thanks to MarcoTolo, and they sufficiently establish notability. Could even be a speedy keep. — Becksguy 05:26, 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 Speedy delete. No assertion of notability whatsoever.. Pascal.Tesson 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Fissel[edit]

William Fissel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Subject does not seem to have done anything that would qualify for inclusion. Captain panda 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WP:NN, fails to meet WP:BIO, and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. No notability established, no claim of notability, and no sources. It looks like a short autobiography of a college student. — Becksguy 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Becksguy. Thin Arthur 08:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. No assertion of notability. probably an autobio. Sasha Callahan 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article appears to be a biography of an unnotable man. Why it wasn't speedy deleted when it was first created confuses me. TheInfinityZero 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This was around since November 2006? Oy. Ichormosquito 17:15, 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. — TKD::Talk 10:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Alumni Association of St. Paul's Co-educational College (Hong Kong)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ontario Alumni Association of St. Paul's Co-educational College (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by IP editor, without justification or improvement of article. The school is indeed notable, but this chapter of an alumni association certainly is not. Fails WP:ORG. Ohconfucius 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Ohconfucius 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable sources. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generally it would be hard for an alumni association to warrant a Wikipedia article separate from that of its school, per WP:ORG. It would be even more difficult to justify an article about a regional chapter of an alumni association. Like Siva1979, I could find no independent sources that discuss this regional chapter. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources covering this particular branch, which is not surprising as it's a bit too low level. An article on the school is fine, an article on the alumni association may be acceptable in some circumstances, but an article on each part of the alumni association is going a bit too far. Hut 8.5 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep without prejudice against a later merge pending further talk page discussion. — TKD::Talk 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia[edit]

List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hardly any content(Name of one volcanoe) and said content is already mentioned in other articles Pheonix15 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedied it as A1, but had a complain in my talk page so restroed, Delete for lack of content. Jaranda wat's sup 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate part of a wider list. When things like Lists of volcanoes are subdivided, as often becomes necessary, it is inevitable that some of the subdivisions will be small, but that does not mean that they should be deleted. If Lists of volcanoes covered all volcanoes directly, removing this volcano would be treated as vandalism, but it had to be subdivided as it would breach the size limits many times over as a single article. Subdivisions also allows the material to be categorised to national categories, which improves the navigability of Wikipedia's coverage of volcanoes. Postlebury 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's one volcano! It's mentioned in many articles - Pheonix15 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, the smaller sections of a wider list may be smaller, but those smaller sections might not be as necessary as their larger counterparts. It's only one item that is being maintained and covered elsewhere, thus, I'd say to delete it. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one item does not a list make. Punkmorten 06:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it's a list of one is neither here nor there. It is part of a wider system. Judge its role in the overall scheme of things, not the slightly unfortunate name. Carina22 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent list or (better) into a list of Volcanoes in Europe. This also applies to many of the lists in the parent list list of terrestrial volcanoes. This author of all these articles (assuming it is one author) needs to be much more selective in what he includes. Rock formations of volcanic origin (from the remote geological past) ought to be dealt with separately, and excluded from this series of lists. In non-volcanic regions (such as most of Europe) a single list dealing with the content (or a substantial part of it) should be sufficient. As far as I know, the few active or dormant volcanoes in Europe are largely along the Mediterranean - Etna, Stromboli, Vesuvius, plus Santorini (or Thera - erupted about 3500 years ago). Peterkingiron 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with this Merge logic. Make geographic divisions, not national ones. This single-country listing is tedious. Volcanos of Africa makes a lot more sense. MarkinBoston 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The system applied for breaking down the global list should be consistent across the board, ie based on countries in all cases, or it will just be messy and confusing. This method of breaking it down also facilities categorisation of the break out articles, as the category system uses countries as the most important means of breaking the world down by geography. Brandon97 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postlebury. Beorhtric 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postlebury and Brandon97. Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. Dbromage [Talk] 02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Madness? THIS IS MACEDONIA! ...sorry. Ichormosquito 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least you didn't make the potentially fatal mistake of a Shakespearian reply of "It's all Greek to me"! Grutness...wha? 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this is part of a system of lists to ease categorization. Besides, maybe they miscounted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe the problem is that the main Lists of volcanoes article only links to sub-lists, even when some of these lists have less than a handful of volcanoes. Perhaps the fact that this article makes sense within the grander scheme of things simply denotes a problem with the grander scheme of things. Calgary 05:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment I know that this isn’t really the appropriate place to bring this up, and I will be raising the issue on the main Lists of volcanoes talk page, but take note that using this system there are currently 44 articles listing regions which have only 5 volcanoes or less.
  • Afghanistan (2)
  • Armenia (5)
  • Ascension Island (1)
  • Brazil (1)
  • Cambodia (1)
  • Cape Verde (3)
  • Comoros (2)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo (5)
  • Djibouti (4)
  • Dominica (5)
  • Equatorial Guinea (3)
  • Fiji (4)
  • France (1)
  • Georgia (4)
  • Grenada (2)
  • Guadeloupe (1)
  • Honduras (4)
  • India (4)
  • Korea (5)
  • Libya (2)
  • Madagascar (5)
  • Malaysia (1)
  • Martinique (1)
  • Mongolia (5)
  • Montserrat (1)
  • Myanmar (3)
  • Netherlands Antilles (1)
  • Nigeria (1)
  • Norway (5)
  • Pacific Ocean (4)
  • Pakistan (5)
  • Panama (3)
  • Poland (3)
  • Macedonia (1)
  • Réunion (2)
  • Rwanda (3)
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis (2)
  • Saint Lucia (1)
  • São Tomé and Príncipe (1)
  • South Africa (2)
  • Sudan (5)
  • Tristan da Cunha (1)
  • Wallis Islands (3)
  • Western Samoa (2)
Still, that being said, I can understand a list, under certain circumstances, including only 5, or maybe even 4 items, but still, that leaves 29 articles that only list 3 volcanoes, and if that’s not enough there are 14 articles that only list 1. Surely, if this is the system of classification we’re using, it’s not a very good one. Calgary 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I understand the reason behind it even if it is a list of one. If there is a consensus to restructure the lists of volcanoes then it can be merged, but that's not a discussion for this AfD. Thin Arthur 08:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of a system. - Darwinek 10:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a wider system, and for facilitation of by-country categorization. Golfcam 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I do wish there was a larger list, I understand the fact that is in part of a large system. TheInfinityZero 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - part of a larger system. The Transhumanist    23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe he should list volcanoes per continent, if the list is not too long or categories on Volcanoes per continent. Other I'm not gonna issue a vote.--JForget 23:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that would be one way to do it, with countries that have a significant number of Volcanoes being spun off on their own list. FrozenPurpleCube 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the things you expect that get you, it's the things you don't expect. FrozenPurpleCube 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all volcano lists with few constituents inot regional groupings. This is a restatement of my view expressed above. The wider system is legitimate, but complete lists containing a mere two or three items are a waste of time. Peterkingiron 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Other volcano lists are not the subject of this AfD. This discussion is about a single article. This article is part of a logical but admittedly cumbersome system. If the system itself needs changing, that's a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere. Dbromage [Talk] 04:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John c jay[edit]

John c jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to John c jay. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely fails WP:BIO. This person has not been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like self-promotion –SESmith 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (as I originally tagged for this article). Non-notable, cannot verify, overly promotional. Realkyhick
  • Speedy delete - A7, tagged. Giggy\Talk 06:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a bit wary about speedy deleting it, but I certainly have no issues endorsing deletion through the AFD process. I'm more concerned about just in case this gets recreated or something or contested, that we can then show the AFD that ran its full course, and say, "This is why we have deleted it." So it's more of a cover-your-butt kind of thing than anything else... SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your reasonning, even though I think it merits a speedy. If we delete it through AfD, it's pretty much gone for good. Realkyhick 08:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom. WebHamster 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is, quite simply, about an unnotable person. It could also be an autobiography, which is against point-of-view requirements. TheInfinityZero 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline speedy, but definitely a delete. Looks to be a likely WP:COI in play, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notability and also the article is written almost like a resume.--JForget 23:34, 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. Jaranda wat's sup 02:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent (2007 film)[edit]

Silent (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable upcoming movie. No reliable sources found to prove notability. Sasha Callahan 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I continue? How many sources/references do I need to establish "notability"? KennethStein 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to KennethStein: you may offer a defence of "Bad faith nomination", which is what you appear to be implying. It is unclear where or when she has attcked you, but you should refrain from attacking back, please be civil. I note that your autobiography Ken Stein has been speedied twice already today - could that have anything to do with your anger? Ohconfucius 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to Ohconfucius: Oh trust me, my comments to her were far more civil than the ones she was making to me. Right now she's simply looking up articles I've written and either proposing them for deletion, or getting friends of hers to and then arguing in favor of deletion. This is not the only article of mine she doing it to. The truth is, she's 16yrs old, immature, and throwing a wikipedia version of a hissy-fit. Not trying to be petty, I'm just trying to call a spade a spade.KennethStein 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Ohconfucius - I disagree with the assessment that I am "disrupting" wikipedia, or attempting to create a "walled garden". I think that characterization is unfair. I am simply writing about what I know, which happens to be movies. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that is where the vast majority of contributions are. Would you rather I edited articles on the Crimean War or particle physics, about which I have little or no knowledge? If I had the time, I would go thru and add every movie I could think of, but I don't - only those that I have specific knowledge of, or interest in. With regard to "disrupting wikipedia" and arguing "uncivilly", I hardly feel the record bears that out. I repeatedly asked Sasha to refrain from making personal attacks and to keep the sarcasm out of the debate, but she refused. Then she responded by essentially proposing any article that I had written for deletion. If anything, she's being more disruptive than me. I was simply trying to add to the database of information. It's an egregious double standard to allow Sasha to open up an article(s) for debate, simply because I wrote tham and she's angry at me, without any safeguards, while everybody jumps to protect her lone article. Then pile on the insult by calling me "disgruntled", when she's the one who started the "bad faith nomination" train rolling...KennethStein 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Many editors work on articles/subjects they know nothing about, myself included, and this is encouraged. I find it is a very good way of learning about other topics, how to edit a wikipedia article; and it also imparts objectivity in exact opposite to how creating an article about yourself is not encouraged for reasons of lack of objectivity, although writing articles about films in which you have been an extra is considered acceptable, but I must admit to being suspicious about your motives after posting Ken Stein twice in one day. Ohconfucius 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Ohconfucius I submitted it twice because I've never had an article deleted before and didn't realize what happened. So I submitted it again, thinking I had erred somewhere in the submission process. When I realized what happened, I disagreed with the "Speedy Deletion" and was attempting to write a more detailed biography using the "hangon" tag in order to start citing sources and such to attempt to establish "notability" when Sasha started insulting me and trying to delete everything I had ever written... With regard to writing it myself, you said it yourself, it's not encouraged - but it's not forbidden either. It'd be hard for anyone to objectively look at the biography I wrote as anything other than a brief factual synopsis. It's hardly laudatory. I kept it brief for exactly that reason. It had been my intention to try to write biographies for everyone in the cast and directors that I know that I've been in films with and create articles, I just started with myself. Additionally, Rock 'n' Roll High School Forever (which I did not write) has a pretty lame page with virtually nothing on it, I was going to update that as well. Third, I was more than just an "extra" in Silent. It is a featured supporting role with a ton of dialogue and action that significantly impacts the storyline and the main characters. That may sound self-serving, but that didn't become an issue until I needed to establish "notability" for an entertainer. I wasn't even going to do that, I just got tired of seeing all the red "no-article" links on the page (which someone else added, I might note. I changed them back to just normal font. Someone reverted them back to links and suggested I write articles...) There was no nefarious intent. 208.101.170.165 16:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the nomination was in bad faith I can't see how this article stablishes notability of any kind. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q., and a spot of crystal-ballery. There will always be a following for low-budget movies, but this one is not even released yet. Ohconfucius 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q. and Ohconfucius. CitiCat ♫ 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Caribbean H.Q., without siding one way or another regarding the personal attacks above. spazure (contribs) (review) 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing exists to suggest that this film does anything to pass the notability guidelines set by WP:MOVIE, including the fact that it hasn't even been released. And while I'm not going to say that the sources provided "don't count", they really don't do much to establish notability (again, take a look at WP:MOVIE). Calgary 06:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Calgary WebHamster 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --TotesBoats 11:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable film by non-notable production company with non-notable cast, article created by one of the actors in the film. Corvus cornix 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to Corvus cornix - Yes it is the first film for Michael Pleckaitis's production company (RevScope) but it's not his first film as director, it's his 4th. Google him. There are plenty of results. Additionally, where is there listed a prohibition againt an actor in a film creating an article about that film? 208.101.170.165 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another aspect of this film's unique contribution to the field of cinema, is that in the 70-80 years since the "sound-era" of movies began (generally considered 1929 to the early 30's), this will be just the fourth silent movie produced and only the second one in the U.S. (Jacques Tati with his Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (1953); In 1999, the famous Finnish filmmaker Aki Kaurismäki produced the silent film Juha; and Mel Brooks with Silent Movie (1976)) 208.101.170.165 19:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that Cthulhu thing, surely? Artw 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is very interesting, although I do wonder if perhaps other, non-notable independent silent films with limited releases have indeed been made, but we just don't know about them. That being said, if what you're saying is true, whileit would be a lovely addition to the article, it still doesn't establish notability. The problem is that although not used very often these days, the silent film genre is indeed a well-established genre, and while silent films are for the most part no longer made, the fact that frome time to time one or two films may refert to the silent-film style does not make those films notable, as they do not represent a major, lasting contribution to their field (cinema), and they do not represent milestones in the fiels of filmmaking (WP:MOVIE). Calgary 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to simplify It's not a unique contribution to the field of cinema. Visiting a style of film that is generally extinct is not unique, as while it is very uncommon, the genre and style already exists and is well established. While by today's standards the fact that it is a silent film may separate it from all other films, it still is still not an original contribution or innovation. Because silent films already exist, the effect that this film's production has on the overall field of cinema is virtually nonexistant. Calgary 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what is your definition of "unique"? Let's be serious, if we were to restrict the wikiwikipedia's coverage of films to films that were truly unqie tht would restrict us from covering 90% of the Oscar nominated films.
      • The number of articles on the wikipedia has been doubling every year So long as those articles aren't complete crap, this is a good thing. There have been comparisons published, serious comparisons, where recognized subject area experts compared the wikipedia's articles to those of commercial online encyclopedia. On subjects those other online encyclopedia cover wikipedia held its own. There were some articles where the experts consensus was that the wikipedia's article was better, than Brittanica's. So, quality, at least for those kinds of articles, is under control AND, in addition, the wikipedia covers well over a million topics not covered by its commercial rivals.
      • I keep encountering a view in the {{afd}} fora -- people who don't seem to want to cover much beyond what Britannica or Encarta cover. But those who seem to hold this view never really offer an explanation as to why they hold this view.
      • Hollywood makes several hundred films per year. Bollywood about twice that. In a wikipedia that added a million new articles in the last year, why the heck cant't room be found for a couple of hundred new fils? Why can't room be found for a thousand new films. I am not suggesting we add crap articles, artciesl that fail to comply with key policies. However, as several people have pointed out, WP:MOVIE is not a policy. I am not suggesting we add vanity articles, articles that violate WP:NPOV, or that don't cite authoritative sources. While Ken Stein's involvement in the film has been noted, I haven't seen any serious suggestions that this involvment has tainted the article into a vanity piece. And it does cite proper references.
      • I have no objection to wikipedians holding the idea that they want to cap the number of articles in the wikipedia to the 1,7 million we have now -- or to cap it at 2 miilion, or 3 million. But, if this is the real underlying objection, then we should all be finding a way to discuss this underlying idea -- not have those who want a small wikipedia picking this article as the place to draw the line.
      • Cheers! Geo Swan 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is
  • Delete with no predujice against recreating once it;s out, has established notability, etc... Artw 18:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I feel that some action should be taken regarding the two main disputants if they choose to continue in this vein. I know that since my being very snippy over the past few days, I'm hardly the person to call anyone out on uncivility, but both User:Sasha Callahan and User:KennethStein are out of line. --Agamemnon2 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I stopped with the personal attacks. Second, this wasn't a nomination done in bad-faith. I truelly believe the movie in question is non-notable, and general consensus here supports that claim. Sasha Callahan 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to User:Sasha Callahan - The trouble, Sasha, is that you made the personal attacks to begin with, then nominated the article for deletion either to make a point or in bad faith (your pick). You can't now then come back and say, "Well, gee, I stopped the personal attacks..." - They never should have started to begin with... 208.101.170.165 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to butt in here, but as a casual observer to a public conversation, I have to say that I sincerely doubt that the nomination was in bad faith. It seems obvious that the film nominated is not notable, and I fail to see how the fact that this is also an article written by you is evidence of bad faith. It seems to me that, all of the personal attacks aside, the pages you created do indeed meet the deletion criteria (or at least, there is a very reasonable argument to be made). Now, it seems to me that rather than this being an intricate trail of vengeance and bad faith, you simply created several articles that do not meet the notability guidelines. Now, I personally think you two should stop bickering, apologize to each other and leave it at that (I'm sorry if that sounds a bit strong, it's just my view of the situation). I agree, in thefirstplace no one should make personal attacks, but seeing as it's already happened and nothing can be done to change that, I suggest that both parties do what they can to make sure this doesn't get drawn out any further than it already has. Calgary 12:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Calgary - This is something we wouldn't even be talking about, had Sasha (as she has admitted) not started making personal attacks and nominating my articles for deletion. Before Sasha, several editors, and other patrollers made minor edits/changes to the article, without questioning it's notability. The first one to do so was Sasha - after she (by her own admission) started making personal attacks. That's like saying, "I killed him because he was black, but my killing seems justified because everyone agrees he was a bad guy...". Her credibility is called into question. Her actions after, attacking someone personally, essentially become "fruit of the poisoned vine". If the police raid someones house because of a personal vendetta, regardless of any impropriety found in the house later, it's not subject to prosecution because their original motives/actions tainted the motives of everything after... 208.101.170.165 14:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVIDENCE OF NOTABILITY - WP:MOVIE states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This guideline includes published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism excluding the following:..."
  • Point of fact - The New Jersey Star-Ledger wrote a full-length featured, multi-page article with color photographs and interviews with the cast/crew ("Silver Screen Redux" by Leslie Kwoh, July 08, 2007) - This is in addition to the multiple websites that has offered coverage or reviews (as listed above + more)
  • Point of fact - According to wikipedia, "The Star-Ledger is the leading newspaper in New Jersey and is based in Newark. It is a sister paper to the Jersey Journal of Jersey City, The Times of Trenton and the Staten Island Advance, all of which are owned by Advance Publications. The Star-Ledger's daily circulation is larger than the next two largest New Jersey newspapers combined and its Sunday circulation is larger than the next three papers combined."
  • You can argue the film's worth as a contribution to the field of cinema, the notability of the cast/crew, and a thousand other aspects of the film. But it's notability is clearly established as it has met wikipedia's stated guidelines regarding newspapers... 208.101.170.165 14:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) KennethStein 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Geo Swan 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOVIE is just a guideline, and shouldn't override common sense. I looked at the article, this passage alone, would be sufficient argument for the article's preservation:

      In the 70-80 years since the "sound-era" of movies began (generally considered 1929 to the early 30's), this will be just the fourth silent movie produced and only the second one in the U.S.

    • Yes, key figures in an {{afd}} shouldn't be throwing mud. But the rest of us should be disregarding the mud throwing and judging the article on its merits.
    • Yes, the article could do with a bit of trimming, to sound a bit less like a commercial. But, IMO, the movie does merit coverage here.
    • IMO all bad faith nominations should be speedily closed. All nominations that look like bad faith nominations should be speedily closed. An administrator speedy closed an {{afd}} that they believed was in retaliation for Sasha's. That decision was, IMO, the right decision. Let someone else, who can make an obviously good faith nomination, from reasoned arguments, make a second nomination.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 16:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You really think this AfD should be speedy closed despite all of the reasoned "delete" !votes? How ... quaint. And to think, anybody with a cell phone can make a movie, call it "only the third silent movie made in the United States in the last x years", and have a Wikipedia article! Corvus cornix 20:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I think it should be closed. Following procedure is important.
        • Anyone who actually offered a reasoned argument here can offer the same argument if this article is renominated with a nomination that does not give the appearance of bad-faith. Geo Swan 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment "quaint" is a good word - I would have used another word beginning with 'B' more instinctively. There are quite a few 'delete' votes for me to believe it does not look like a bad faith nom at least to those, so a duck this ain't. Agree with Calgary, technology aside, going retro alone is not sufficient to assert or prove notability. Ohconfucius 07:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Closing this because of Geo Swan's own personal interpretation of bad faith would not be following procedure. And besides, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Corvus cornix 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Would it be too onerous a request to ask people to confine their comments to whether or not this article should be deleted, kept, relisted for {{afd}} by someone who hasn't had a fight with the article's creator -- and for people to avoid mocking personal comments? Geo Swan 05:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just want to say that I think closing the afd at this point because of a possible bad faith nomination is ridiculous. If someone has listed an article for deletion and supplies a reason, and a significant number of people agree, in good faith, that the article should be deleted for the reason listed, they explain their rationale, and a fairly detailed discussion ensues, should the article be deleted 3 days and a hell of a lot of discussion later simply because there is a possibility that the nomination was in bad faith? Now, I think it's terrible when things happen in bad faith, but considering the amount of discussion (and valid discussion) that has already occured, and that another nomination, with the same rationale, would have had a very similar discussion, and considering that if the discussion were closed it would be likely to be relisted, does it really make sense to close the discussion based on the possibility of a bad faith nomination? Or would that just be a formality for the sake of formalities? Calgary 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - Per Geo Swan. AND Notability established per Star-Ledger article. Also agree with comments regarding the possible appearance of a Bad Faith Nom. (I'm not assuming anything regarding her motives, just stating that the appearance of a possible Bad Faith Nom may warrant disregarding the nom) 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. ELIMINATORJR 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Every single one of this user's edits is to a DRV or AfD page. Corvus cornix 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***COMMENT to Corvus cornix - I'm sorry. Please clarify - does that also invalidate my vote agreeing with your opinion in another discussion? Should I clear my vote with you before joining future discussions? BaldDee 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment to Corvus cornix. For the most part, I've respected your opinions (even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said) because they seemed reasoned and articulate. However, it seems that you've started sliding down that "slippery slope" toward making this debate a personal issue a'la Sasha. I'm referring to the obviously sarcastic tone (although you kept it polite) of your comment toward Geo Swan and your apparent belief that BaldDee's opinion isn't of value because they apparently comment on AfD's/DRV's (I'm not sure what the relevance is...). I think it's interesting that you haven't mentioned the edit history of anyone who "voted" for deletion. (I stressed "voted" because you used that word) If you are familiar with the deletion process, you should realize that this isn't a "vote" and nobody should be "voting". This is a forum to have a reasoned discussion/debate regarding the merits of the deletion nomination. I can respect the opinions of those I disagree with. On another site, I got into a majorly heated debate with another blogger - to the point of us probably wanting to hunt each other down. But we quickly learned to respect each other's opinions and we now consider ourselves friends and (ironicaly enough, even allies in several more hotly contested subjects), but it was because we based the debate on reason and sustained our positions with factual or logical argument. We never got personal with each other and kept any sarcasm solely for the purpose of levity and humor (occasioanlly even frivolity and mirth) but most importantly, not belittling another's opinion.
    • Can we at least, try to keep a level of decorum? KennethStein 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to User:Corvus cornix I'm sorry, but how are this user's edits relevant to the discussion? There is no criteria you have to meet or standards you have to pass in order to participate in a deletion discussion, and as I see it, suggesting that someone should be judged in a deletion discussion based on their contributions is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but is tantamount to biting the newcomers. Also, what's very odd is that I think that as far as any deletion discussion is concerned, participating in nothing but deletion discussions simply suggests experience, and is possibly a good thing rather than a bad thing. Calgary 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review more AfDs. Single Purpose Accounts are tagged all the time. Like I said, it's a courtesy to the closing admin, and it helps them to determine how heavily to judge the SPA's arguments. Corvus cornix 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to BaldDee, KennethStein, and Calgary. Please view this. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

****COMMENT. A couple things. I don't "check users". I base each vote on the merits of the nom in question, I never look to see who wrote an article, who nominated it, or what their history is so I have no idea whose articles/noms I'm voting on. By my count, I've voted in 22 discussions. How many of those are by the same person/author/nominator? Additionally, I have no choice as to who my IP is. I live in a rural area of PA and am lucky to have DSL at all. As it is, there is only one ISP who provides service here. Lastly, I am not anyone's "puppet" (meat, sock, or otherwise). I was in an abusive marriage with a controlling man for 15 years, no one (especially a man) tells what to do or not to do. I will not be marginilzed. I will not permit myself to be dragged into whatever personal disputes that are going on in this discussion. Nor, will I be intimidated into voting in a particular fashion. Period. End of discussion. BaldDee 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. ELIMINATORJR 22:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

          • It is completely proper for an editor to note that someone participating in a discussion is a new user who has no prior Wikipedia history. Note that I am not arguing that your !votes be removed, I am merely pointing out that your entire Wikipedia history revolves around deletion discussions, which shows that you have no experience in the inner workings of Wikipedia. Of course, the sockpuppet accusations that you are really KennethStein with a new name and are trying to get two "votes" from one user are quite appropriate, and it is up to the closing admin to determine whether to count, or to discount, your arguments. Corvus cornix 16:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Geez-Louise. Is it impossible to keep discussion around here to the facts of the article in question and the debate surrounding it? So far, people have made peronal attacks (at least they admitted it), sarcastic and insulting personal comments, accused people of being "sockpuppets" (I wasn't even familiar with that one until a couple minutes ago - I had to look it up) and (based on the tag at the top of the discussion) posted notes in discussions trolling for voters to come in and support their position. Several users have made reasoned and articulate arguments on both sides of the debate, but others seem to want to make this issue a personal crusade. I am admittedly interested in the outcome... others seem to have an interest for unknown reasons). Can we please just lay off the personal stuff?? Please?? KennethStein 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sockpuppets? Still figuring that one out, but a cursory back ground check reveals that it is suspected that TotesBoats (a new user as of 08/24/07) is a sock puppet of PEAR - whatever the hell that is. KennethStein 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it might become notable once it actually hits the screen at which time it could be re-created from reliable sources. Agathoclea 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to user disrupting the AFD. Will (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable, it needs more independent sources to assert notability. Carlosguitar 18:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is there any evidence that this film is even being released to anywhere or is it just a film that was made to submit to film contests? Consider this evidence enough for lack of notability - from the WP article: "It's less commercial than my previous films, less bubblegum," he said. Considering that the other films are non-notable straight-to-DVD releases that could probably also be submitted to afd...and he's claiming that this movie is even LESS notable...then, straight from the director - this movie is not notable. The other argument that the movie premise is original is even moot. If you read the article, it's even mentioned that this movie is like Pleasantville set further back. It also sounds a lot like the Buffy episode "Hush". So, no, this movie's claims to notability are highly suspect. - Smashville 17:34, 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 keep. WjBscribe 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polycarp (2007 Film)[edit]

Polycarp (2007 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film that doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE WebHamster 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the film fails all five ponits listed at WP:MOVIE Sasha Callahan 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Does indeed seem to be non-notable as per WP:MOVIE as well as on on general principles. That beeing said, Google search for "Polycarp movie" yeilds about 22,500 pages [31], and if someone digs out of there some reliable independent significant coverage of the movie, I'll change my vote. ikh (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Does appear to be borderline notable. One of the criteria for WP:MOVIE is "screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". The film premiered at the 2007 Hoboken International Film Festival.[32].[33]

The production company also auctioned a walk on speaking part in the movie and gave the proceeds to charity.[34][35] Dbromage [Talk] 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that is notable (regardless of the fact it isn't close to being part of the criteria within WP:MOVIE). In any case I'd be willing to bet that it was done as an act of marketing rather than altruism. Any producer worth his salt has to get as much bang out of the production buck as possible, even more so for a $2.5m low budget film like this one. For the money they spent on this exercise they got themselves publicity, a part filled (albeit a walk-on one), the perception of appearing to be philanthropists, then additionally, the icing on the cake was that they donated the money to charity thereby getting themselves an additional tax break on the money (I'll give evens that the money came out of the marketing budget anyway, which, of course, is also tax deductible). These are movie-makers you know, it's all about money and bugger all to do with art (it is a low budget horror movie after all). To reiterate, how is this notable? They aren't the first to do it, I rather doubt they'll be the last.--WebHamster 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"At least five years after" makes the requirement 2012 by my poor math skills. WebHamster 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad Faith Nomination - LOL. This is a "Bad Faith Nomination" by a user, abusing their privleges. The film was proposed for deletion simply because I wrote it. "Sasha" is merely hunting down every article I've ever written and proposing them for deletion.
      • Rebuttal: Strike 1 to you, this is indeed the case. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. A two-word walk-on role was auctioned for $11,000 at a Steven Spielberg/Jon Voight charity event — a sum significantly greater than paid for any other auctioned roles, including those in films like BABY GENIUSES 3 and the hit TV shows SCRUBS and MEDIUM.
      • Rebuttal: Strike 1 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE and is just a marketing gimmick. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3. It was the opening film of a major film festival (June 01, 2007)
      • Rebuttal: Strike 2 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rebuttal: Strike 3 to the nomination. This has no relevance based on WP:MOVIE. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5. {note} The five-year requirement is one criteria for establishing "historical notability". Clearly, there are hundreds of movies listed on wikipedia that are less than 5 yrs old. KennethStein 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rebuttal: Strike 4 to the nomination. --WebHamster 14:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Check your facts before you accuse. I didn't nominate it. Sasha Callahan 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I nominated the article, I don't know you from Adam and I wish I was 16 again (well maybe not!) WebHamster 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per User:Dbromage spazure (contribs) (review) 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily if what Dbromage says is true, it does indeed meet WP:MOVIE, and should be kept. Giggy\Talk 06:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the two stars are notable. Corvus cornix 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Corvus cornix. -- DS1953 talk 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above. --Agamemnon2 21:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It just meets WP:MOVIE.--JForget 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Even if, for the sake of argument, the film doesn't meet the criteria of WP:MOVIE, that is just a guideline, and shouldn't over-ride common sense. The five points laid out by KennethStein are compelling. And, so far, the nominator hasn't chosen give them a meaningful, substantive reply. If he or she has one, I think they really owe it to the rest of us to make the effort to write it down. Cheers! Geo Swan 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Per most reasons above. Especially agree with Geo Swan, Corvus cornix, and KennethStein. --BaldDee 15:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to user disrupting the AFD. Will (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Ken. The star of the movie is definitely notable. Smashville 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G4, recreation of deleted material SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Propellerhead Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:CSD#g4. Article was speedily deleted (5th time) and salted yesterday per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Propellerhead Software. It was subsequently restored, unfortunatly the sources added fail WP:RS. The sources added are not independant of the company, both propellerheads.se, and rebirthmuseum.com are ownwed by Propellerhead Software. This Strenthens the previous AFD consensus that this article is in fact Non-notable and just advertising. the others seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Hu12 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. Still spam, even if it's now honey-roast spam. =) Salt because the page has been recreated multiple times. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. This was speedied and the page was supposed to have been salted. Dbromage [Talk] 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per reasons mentioned above, and the prior AfD spazure (contribs) (review) 06:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per nom ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 06:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, so tagged. ADMIN: PLEASE SALT! Giggy\Talk 06:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami's Power Sequences[edit]

Sami's Power Sequences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In this revision the author indicates this is original research ("...a proposition by a wiki user..."). Alksub 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, otherwise unpublished original research. "Sami Altakla" returns no hits on Google either. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Apparently OR, probably self promotion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure original research, article admits (or admitted) as much. Iain99 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per hilarious OR :) Giggy\Talk 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: OR if I ever saw one. --Goochelaar 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Maybe the contents should be user-fied – the author clearly has a good imagination, and the patterns are interesting, if not exactly profound. DavidCBryant 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Probably original research. Something suspiciously similar to the well-known number 142857 appears for both 2 and 5, and just maybe something worth noticing is here, but Wikipedia is not the proper forum for such novelties. If it's been published anywhere else, then that could be cited here and it would not be "original research" for the purposes of Wikipedia's deletion policies, in which case I might reconsider. Michael Hardy 20:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR; non-notable; simple consequence of Euler's theorem. Gandalf61 09:03, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A1 — no context. --Haemo 03:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future quest[edit]

Future quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 although latter participants reflect that the updated article probably has a consensus to keep. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Dov Keller[edit]

Chaim Dov Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources giving significant coverage are found Corpx 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Chocolatepizza 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of reliable sources is a major concern here for this subject. There are also notability issues as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Yehoishophot Oliver 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. The article claims notability, but without any citations. Fails WP:BIO as it is. May even be a speedy delete — Becksguy 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - non notable person, WP:BIO. Speedy, snowball close, anyone? Giggy\Talk 06:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until the procedure actually mentioned at WP:BIO has been gone through. Namely, it says only that If the article can not be improved or is clearly not an appropriate subject for Wikipedia, then it could be nominated for AfD. No one has said the article cannot be improved. The name gets nearly 500 Google hits. Absence of sources is not sufficient for deletion here. Charles Matthews 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references, and expanded the article. Please reconsider votes based solely on the absence of references. Charles Matthews —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:07, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
    • Further comment: I'm glad to see the article transformed into a longer piece. There is clearly a NPOV discussion going on about it, but as far as I'm concerned Keller is clearly enough a notable figure of controversy, and there should be an article here on those grounds. Charles Matthews 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 62 unique ones once you exclude wikipedia [36] with many of them mirrors of wikipedia that do not mention the word wikipedia in them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, with all due respect, the absence of sources is grounds for deletion, per WP:BIO: "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources...". Also see WP:NOTE. In this case, the subject may be notable, but reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that. Further, if your interpretation of that clause in WP:BIO was correct, no article could ever be deleted, because any article could be improved, except for obvious non-encyclopedic ones. At this point, the article is essentially the same as when it was created on April 4th. There are zero references. It was nominated for WP:PROD for the same reason (WP:BIO) on July 30, and then contested. If people want to keep this article, the solution is to find sources and place them, and this can be done as the debate continues. I saw one case where consensus changed from delete to keep because of the work done on sourcing during the debate. — Becksguy 15:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a few seconds to find other references, to "Chaim Keller", or "Rabbi Keller". Also, with due respect, the guy can be presumed notable enough from 62 references. I came here out of particular concern on the proposal to close by invoking 'snowball'. Snowballing votes compiled over a period of at most seven hours strikes me as particularly a worry. WP:BIO says debates will run for 5 days, not that they will be closed while you are asleep. Also the full citation runs as follows Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources, and, if the subject is living, we must follow the policy at our policy for biographies of living people. So it must, but simply killing the debate when less than 10% of its alloted span has run is not an 'ultimate' test at all.
Charles Matthews 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the sources give "significant coverage"? Also, I agree that Snowball Delete should not be an option for AFDs, so as to give contributers more time to respond Corpx 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles? Leave me alone. Stop stalking my AfD contributions. And stop making stuff up - nothing you've said asserts any reason to keep the article. I'd expect better from an ArbCom member... Giggy\Talk 07:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STALK: Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. Not doing that. Valid criticism of your wish to snowball discussions in a few hours is shared by someone else on this page. And I've referenced the article. Charles Matthews 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1 As the head of a prominent yeshiva (Telshe yeshiva (Chicago)) he is notable. 2 The web is wrong place to look for citations of rosh yeshivas; try looking in the Jewish Press (not replicated on the Web) --Redaktor 00:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- although, per the deletion policy, lack of sources is valid reason for deletion, I agree with Charles's other points. The subject is notable, and the sources he has provided are enough to make the article keep-able. --Boricuaeddie 00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this notable rabbi (many articles about rabbis start small and are built up, so it's no excuse to delete them without asking for editorial input first.) Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller is probably one of the best known rabbis in Chicago at the present time. He is not a congregational rabbi, but serves as the co-rosh yeshiva ("dean") of the largest yeshiva in Chicago. He is mentioned in key articles relating to Haredi Judaism. A Google search for "Chaim Dov Keller" yields over 470 hits (a large number for such a person in the world of Orthodox Judaism) many connected to numerous and significant publications in the world of American Orthodox Judaism and particularly Haredi Judaism for which he is leading spokesman and scholar with Agudath Israel of America. He co-heads the Telshe yeshiva (Chicago) and he has played a major role is speaking out on the issue of the messianic claims concerning Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch, see Controversies of Chabad#The soul as "the essence of God". Note that it is (mostly) the pro-Chabad editors who are (pushing for) voting to delete...Wikipedia is not chabad.org! IZAK 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google hits do not measure notability, as it must be provided through reliable sources. If anyone can cite any of these sources, I'll gladly change my vote Corpx 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Coprx: The point I was making was that those Google hits refer to reliable articles and sources. I am now working on bringing some of those into the article. IZAK 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi again: Take a look at the article now. IZAK 12:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable rabbi and rosh yeshiva, no need to delete a stub that just needs expanding. --MPerel 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references have since been added. --Shuki 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is very notable and the article is fine as a stub. --Jayrav 14:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to Charles Matthews for jumping in and kicking this AfD up into a real discussion. On the face of it, it now appears that there are sufficient references to make Keller notable. However, I am not sure that the references are credible. Keller is a religious fundamentalist, much like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson. Keller’s statement about a gay student association (it’s an “abomination”) could well have come out of Falwell’s mouth. Fundamentalists (of all religions) believe that they are right, have the only true religion, and everyone else is wrong, regardless. These people are highly intolerant and have used advocacy journalism and other means (including extreme means) to push their agenda. Neutral and objective reporting is not true in many parts of the world (including the US — e.g. Fox News). Since we are supposed to cite independent, objective and reliable sources, I cannot agree that notability has been established here, until the sources have been run through various human rights and watchdog organizations, and with publications doing the kind of work that FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting does. So no, I’m not changing my recommendation yet. But I withdraw mention of a speedy—this one may take more than 5 days. — Becksguy 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Becksguy: You are making a huge error. Keller is not like Falwell or the others you quote. He is not concerned with making pronouncements to the world at all. Rabbi Keller is only working within the orbit of Haredi Jewry and expressing it's views vis-a-vis other JEWISH Orthodox groups. The issue of gays is not Keller's invention because ALL of Orthodoxy, be it Haredi or modern Orthodox condemns it since it violates a Biblical commandment that is part of the Orthodox belief system. So Rabbi Keller's significance, especially as a living rabbi has more to do with internal struggles and it is no use killing the messenger if you don't like the message. If you hate Keller you will hate all Orthodox Jews because essentially he speaks as a quintessential Orthodox rabbi. You seem to miss a point here that there is an additional hatred of Keller by the Chabad people because he has denounced their false messianism by their worshipping Rabbi Schneerson as the messiah and even as a god, and I suspect which is why they tried to get this article about him prodded and are now pushing to have him dumped altogether from Wikipedia, but all this maneovering cannot cover up the basic truths and issues and what Keller represents so that hopefully you do not misunderstand what is happening here. IZAK 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and seems to be guilty of WP:SYNTH as well (there is no record of his views…) Avi 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avi: What you are saying is not clear. There are segments quoting entire parts of articles written by Rabbi Keller, and since when is it "WP:SYNTH" to quote newspapers and magazines read by Haredim that quote the subject of this article? IZAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs) 09:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable among the Ultra-orthodox Jewish community and probably also outside it, especially for his anti-Messianic stance against Chabad, as mentioned above. Sources not available on the Intarnet but are probably available in Printed religious Jewish magazines. No good reason to delete. Nahum 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can cite sources that are not on the internet, as long as they're verifiable Corpx 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the only controversial section and that which lacks sources is "Views." This section may need to be deleted or revised. No reason to delete the whole article. -- Nahum 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the refs in the article are essays written by him or articles that only give him mention in passing, neither of which asserts notability Corpx 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corpx: You are wrong. Many of the articles are written by Rabbi Keller. Secondly he is quoted in many other articles directly. Thirdly you are being ridiculous when you say "You can cite sources that are not on the internet, as long as they're verifiable" which is like saying that "you will need sources for a source" -- either a source is a source or it isn't and it is not for you decide that now Wikipedians need to provide "double sources"! Finally, even if statements are made in passing, they may still be the only way that the notabality of Orthodox and certainly Haredi rabbis can be determined since so few of them actually write Haredi "public opinion" pieces in secular mediums or the general media. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK --Yeshivish 04:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heads a yeshiva and is an American Haredi leader. gidonb 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many NPOV violations and NOR problems (e.g. attributing his personal views to Aguda as a whole). When all these problematic parts are removed (and they should), there is little left that actually asserts his notability. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • JFW: It is suprsiing that you are not aware of Rabbi Keller's stature in the American Agudath Israel movement, particulrly when he has written many key articles and "position papers" expressing Agudah's views to the world that tracks Haredi life. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - IZAK: I was not attacking Rabbi Keller, please reread my comment. I accept your statement that Keller is not like the Christian fundamentalists I mentioned, and I'm sorry you are upset. I refuse to get in the middle of a fight involving Jewish Orthodoxy, especially when I know very little about it (I had to look up Chabed). We are here to discuss whether the article meets WP article requirements. In my comment, I was trying to establish an understanding of why news sources involved in (or too close to) fundamentalist issues, religious schisms, contentious issues within a religious group, or any other polarizing issues, have to be looked at especially hard. This is necessary to determine if they are performing credible, neutral, and balanced reporting, and have a reputation of doing so. I'm not looking at this as a debate on fundamentalism or the religious issues involved, just whether Keller is, or is not notable. He has zero references in The New York Times and in both the major general circulation daily newspapers in Chicago—The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times. And neither does the Yeshiva. To me, that indicates lack of notability. Furthermore, being the head of a yeshiva, or a church, or a college does not, per se, make one notable. And I agree with the last comment from corpx. — Becksguy 11:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Becksguy: Your comments are appreciated, however you are still missing the point. If one were to wait or reply upon The New York Times as an absolute source for biographical material about notable rabbis, let alone Orthodox or Haredi rabbis, then Wikipedia would have close to zero articles about current living or recent rabbis. Thus far, it has been up to editors familiar with the subject at hand to decide if the rabbis or personalities at hand are notable and in turn that is backed up by the published material that is related to those subjects. It all depends on one's orientation, to know what is important as a source and what is not. How on Earth could any articles be written about any notable Haredi rabbis if they avoid the secular media and very little is available in other sources? That is where the expertise, and consensus, of EXPERIENCED, RELIABLE, and TRUSTWORTHY editors is a key. Just as quite often, "new editors" are not allowed to edit general Wikipedia articles in all areas until such time as their reliability and editing "credentials" can be relied upon, similarly in cases where it is important to SEEK out and elicit the INPUT from experienced editors. This is something that User:PinchasC tried to skip and also you seem not to grasp. In this case, The Jewish Observer magazine, as the official magazine of Agudath Israel is key, and the role of the Yated Ne'eman (United States) as a newspaper guided by the Agudah leadership is crucial because that is where one can "hear it from the horse's mouth" so to speak. Unless a rabbi has written books that are widely known, which not all do, then one must rely upon the sources closest to him, and in this case (of Rabbi Keller) they are there and full of thorough articles that express his views and those of that segement of the Haredi population he represents and speaks for. To ignore or minimise it's importance would be a great shame, and an encyclopedic loss to Wikipedia. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a shaper of litvishe yeshivishe guys should be noteble to them--יודל 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article notes he is head of the Telshe yeshiva (Chicago), was spokesperson for Agudath Israel of America, and describes his role in Yated Ne'eman (United States). This is easily sufficient notability to satisfy WP:BIO. POV and citation problems can be fixed. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic, not whether the current article is a quality article. Religious sources are considered reliable sources for religious matters, including whether a religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote. --Shirahadasha 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ones opinion of Rabbi Keller's views is simply irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria, and I would urge commenters not to use this space to discuss such matters. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course! Chesdovi 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and keep Most of the article is not adequately sourced, and the article as a whole violates WP:NOR as being a Wikipedian's evaluation of the articles he has written. Essentially all the content about his views needs to come out until reliable third party sources commenting upon those views are found. Right now, the article has adequate independent sourcing to demonstrate that he is notable, but not to say anything about his views. The last bullet of the WP:SELFPUB section of WP:V is also applicable. GRBerry 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi GR: Your suggestion is unique and odd and I have never seen such a self-defeating "solution" that actually means an article should be "cannibalised" to "save" itself. Somewhat like asking someone to commit suicide becaue you don't like what they have to say. In these type/s of articles (and I am not sure how much experience you have had with them on Wikipedia) there are very few "reliable third party sources" in the way you conceive of them, see the important comments by User:Shirahadasha above in this regard. In any case, what is your definition of a "thrird party"? Basically, you are dealing with a living rabbi who writes and speaks out on current issue within the confines of a very narrow (organizational) orbit, i.e. the Jewish Orthodox and more specifically the American Haredi Agudath Israel world. This is not an area that is tracked very well or much by either the secular Jewish or general media, but it is still neverthless notable and of encyclopedic value. Often, there are few outside books and articles to go by. Thus whatever material that can be attributed to the main subject is, what is called in historical studies, a valuable primary source, provided it is treated as such and not as "gospel truth" -- which this article does not do when quoting him. In this article, Rabbi Keller's views are being quoted and analyzed critically and they are not being taken at face value alone. Incidentally, your notion of "third party" views may be what is termed in historical studies a secondary source and may actually be less reliable, believe it or not. It is silly to suggest that the "views" segments in the article (or any article) be removed as that would be like asking that all "quotes" by and from famous people in any articles be removed from Wikipedia, which would be ridiculous. There is no rule or guideline on Wikipedia that says that the words of a subject in an article cannot or should not be quoted provided they are placed in the context of the main article. To ask, as you do, that all quotes or "views" of and by subjects of biographies be cut out would be a ridiculous suggestion, and I suggest that you retract it. IZAK 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it seems at least a reasonable comment to me. If the article is to be kept, and I think that's now likely, there can be different views about how it should be treated. I hope someone will actually add paper references. If they can, there will be a much better basis. Charles Matthews 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything written by the subject, or an organization of which he is a leader is not independent. Whether that writing is sourced to the original publication or to a convenience link on somebody else's website isn't relevant to the question of independence. For a ridiculous example, if he happened to be one of the (millions? of) members of the ACLU, that wouldn't be enough to make the ACLU non-independent, but if he was an officer or director of the ACLU, it would. So written materials by unaffiliated rabbis in that Jewish sub-culture would be independent, but materials written by the subject and the organizations he is a leader of or spokesperson for (the Telshe Yeshiva in Chicago, the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah based on the article) or works for (possibly the Yated Ne'eman, depending on his particular relationship to them and their organizational structure) are not independent.
The critical analysis, because it is not sourced, violates the policy against original research. This a basic policy that can not be overridden by consensus among the editors of a single page or of a topical project. Such original research must be removed, this is not a discretionary action. See the WP:PSTS subsection of the policy, which says in relevant part "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
The article must be stubbed (or sourced acceptably even faster) in order to comply with policy. Because I believe that stubbing is needed to comply with policy, I consider stubbing a requirement for keeping the article. I don't consider my comment a minor suggestion, I consider it an absolute requirement to keep the article in existence. Your (IZAK's) reaction indicates that you may have been working on other articles that fail to comply with policy in similar fasion, and I recommend that you return to those articles and make them compliant with policy. GRBerry 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. OK, IZAK, you convinced me with your point about "mainstream" sources. He seems to be notable enough in the world of Jewish Orthodoxy. I'm changing my "vote". I still have problems with the citations and their possible objectivity, but that can be hashed out later, as can the rest of the article per above. Especially since I've argued before about not throwing out babies with the bath water, that is, keeping articles that are improvable. This AfD was a learning experience. — Becksguy 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure Becksguy, you are welcome any time. As I look at what you write here, it may be said that it's true of all Wikipedia articles, isn't that what this entire project is all about? of writing down information and the going about the process of editing it, hashing it out etc etc as in Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style etc etc. Thanks for all your consideration/s. IZAK 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Java7837 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem to meet the notability guideline, though it is a strech.--SefringleTalk 04:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wandu Mountain City. The one point on which there is agreement is that it is not sensible to have two articles on the same place since this is clearly a POV naming fork. There appears to be different content and references between the two articles. However, I lack the knowledge to carry out a sensible merge so I am keeping the history of this article visible to enable more expert editors to merge across relevant material. Because of the disputes going on I am protecting the various redirects. The way to resolve the naming dispute is for those editors who prefer Hwando (fortress) to raise a WP:RM. TerriersFan 16:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwando (fortress)[edit]

This article has been created by User:Cydevil38 as a POV fork of an identical article "Wandu Mountain City" to circumvent the romanization dispute of 丸都 (Pinyin:Wandu, Korean:Hwando) in the article Goguryeo, the discussion about his editing in Wandu Mountain City, and the discussion about Romanization of Chinese characters. This POV fork should be deleted.--Jiejunkong 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cydevil38's manipulation of Wandu Mountain City and preparation of the POV fork are described in Talk:Wandu_Mountain_City#Unethical_Behavior, which is verifiable by looking at the article's editing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiejunkong (talk • contribs) 21:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cydevil38 also bypassed the redirection link "Hwando fortress" and used a strange title with unnecessary disambiguation suffix.--Jiejunkong 07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From a quick perusal of the page histories, this looks like a content dispute. Dbromage [Talk] 07:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This is a content dispute. The WQA became stuck about 2 hours ago and was referred to WP:RFC/HIST. In this light, nominating the article for deletion seems disruptive. Dbromage [Talk] 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • POV forks normally come from content disputes. I don't know that content disputes can be used to deny the judgement that something is a POV fork.--Jiejunkong 08:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point I'm making is the dispute was referred to an RFC for resolution. I hope you're not making a point by nominating the article for deletion before that process has even started. Dbromage [Talk] 08:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The RFC is about the edit war in Wandu Mountain City. Currently there is talk going on in Talk:Wandu Mountain City. I promised the administrator User:Darkwind to fill in all technical evidence in Talk:Wandu Mountain City in a few days (User_talk:Darkwind#Talk:Wandu_Mountain_City), then I will put this into RFC if needed. But this doesn't mean the other side can create POV forks during these a few days. And it doesn't mean you can validate the POV forks without even looking at the reliable sources (you admitted you only had a quick perusal of the page histories. Maybe the technical contents are too hard for you. But then you may ask some experts to deal with the contents, rather than jump to conclusions by yourself).--Jiejunkong 08:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a historian so I can't comment on the specifics of the content. I. and probably most other Wikipedians, can't say for sure which article is "correct" (I use that term figuratively). That's what WP:RFC/HIST is for. Nominating a rival article for deletion so soon after the WQA stalled and was referred to RFC does look a tad like making a point. Dbromage [Talk] 09:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said it, rival article! FYI, an article created as a rival of another existing article is known as a POV fork in Wikipedia. Totally untolerated.Wiki Pokemon 04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, you know that it is non-trivial to rescan all the reliable sources to write down those historical records (while I also have to spend quite a lot of time to reply to the non-technical messages like what we wrote here). This takes time to finish and you cannot validate POV forks during the time.--Jiejunkong 09:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dbromage [Talk] seemed to not understand what a POV fork is. Wikipedia has strong policy against POV forking and the recommended action is deletion of the offending fork, no question ask. There may be content dispute, but the author of the fork, instead of resolving the dispute has created a POV fork to avoid discussioin, and to make a point in his POV fork. That is the reason Wikipedia strongly require all POV fork be deleted. All discussions and resolution by WP:RFC/HIST or whatever should continue at the original articles, not creating a POV fork.Wiki Pokemon 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My dispute at Wandu Mountain City is that it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site, not the historic fortress itself. The fortress no longer exists and now lies in ruins, and recently the remains(possibly, but not certain whether this site was Hwando Seong) have been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site under the official name of "Wandu Mountain City"(Korean transliteration: Hwando Sanseong). In reliable English publications, however, the common romanization is "Hwando" with various suffixes. Also, regardless of romanization, the name of the fortress itself is also a matter of dispute. Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition uses slightly different name(Hwando Seong) for the fortress with a different definition, that Hwando Seong is an alternate name for Guknae Seong. Hwando Seong that Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition uses is the common Korean term for this historic fortress, and English transliteration of this name is also used in Cambridge History of Japan[37]. Another English publication, Korea: A Historical and Cultural Dictionary[38], uses the name "Hwando" without any suffixes and defines it as an alternative name for Guknae Seong(romanized as Kungnaesong in the book), same definition as that in Encyclopedia Britannica. Doosan Encyclopedia(the largest Korean encyclopedia), on the other hand, uses an entirely different name(Wina-am Seong), and explains that it was built as a defensive structure for Guknae Seong. According to this encyclopeida, Hwando Seong and its variants are alternative names for Win-am Seong. So my point is that "Wandu Mountain City" is not necessarily an equivalent of "Hwando Seong" or "Wina-am Seong", and it is necessary to detach this historic entity from the fixed name and definition of the UNESCO World Heritage Site to make room for the controvesies over the name and definition of this historic entity. The article needs much improvement and revision, but not deletion. Cydevil38 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wandu Mountain City is originally created to be about the historic fortress as the main theme, no doubt about it. It as a UNESCO World Heritage Site is a side theme. Cydevil is intentionally twisting the above fact. The objective situation is clear that Cydevil is not creating a new article independent of Wandu Mountain City, but a POV fork.Wiki Pokemon 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wandu Mountain City as POV fork. If Wandu Mountain City itself has inappropriate POV content or is inappropriate named, there are more appropriate vehicles to address those rather than creating a POV fork. (As far as I am concerned, the article should be named simply Wandu or Hwando -- which one is more appropriate is debatable -- and all issues dealing with location, modern designation, and whether the ruins were the same as the historical city of Wandu should be dealt with within the article.) --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is no POV forking. For example, there are separate articles for Tsushima Island and Tsushima City. The geographical, cultural, and historical elements within a modern day city deserve separate scholarly treatments. (Wikimachine 04:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously a POV fork to circumvent debate and consensus building of a dispute.Wiki Pokemon 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hwando should be kept in order to describe the Fortified city that once existed at the site. UNESCO registers it as Wandu mountain city, due to the historic name that was given to it, when Wandu was first built. I suggest that Wandu Mountain City be redirected to this page.Odst 20:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops...Not this page, but the Hwando page. Odst 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been called by Odst to look at this dispute - and it's my personal opinion that we need to keep this article b/c within the context of Goguryeo history, Hwando fortress deserves its own article - separate from the Wandu about the city in the Chinese context. Also, the guys who are advocating for the deletion of this article are the same POV guys (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong) who made ridiculous requests. (Wikimachine 00:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • merge to Wandu Mountain City,the two present the same city or fortress,but Wandu is a more formal name.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Hwando is a more formal name, since it was a Korean kingdom that created and named it.Odst 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rather, Wandu mountain city should be redirected to Hwando, since UNESCO heritage is of less importance to the actual fortress itself.Odst 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See UNESCO and World Heritage Site for their significance.--Endroit 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Wandu or Hwando is the more appropriate name is not the issue here. The issue is whether the article in question here was properly created as a separate article or improperly created as a POV fork. If it is an improper POV fork, the factors that support having the Wandu article be named Hwando do not support the article's continued existence, only a move of the Wandu article to Hwando. --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cydevil38's edit history up to Aug. 24 [39] shows evidence of WP:POINT violation, by the creation of this POV fork. Hwando (fortress) (or Hwando Seong 丸都城 in Korean) is a POV fork of Wandu Mountain City (or Hwando San Seong 丸都山城 in Korean).--Endroit 16:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's more: To be fair, this POV fork may have been created in retaliation for the creation of another POV fork: Guonei City (國內城) is a POV fork of Guknae Seong (國內城), albeit UNESCO calls it Guonei City. The proper procedure which should have been followed is WP:RM (or WP:DR).--Endroit 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that there was an editing war occurred at the Guonei City. Guonei City and Guknae Seong are the same thing, thus they should be merged. According to the wikirecord, Guknae Seong was created earlier, thus the POV fork discussion of that article can be discussed immediately after this POV fork discussion because they are quite similar in my opinion.--Jiejunkong 05:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Endroit's comments here further proves my point, that some editors may insist upon the "official name" and the "official definition" of this entity, hence limiting the scope of this article to contents already set by UNESCO. So I believe Wandu Mountain City should deal with the entity that has been designated as the UNESCO World Heritage Site, and the article nominated here should focus on the historic entity that no longer exists today. Cydevil38 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anybody (except Wikimachine) buys your story that the 2 articles talk about 2 different things, Cydevil.--Endroit 18:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. That's what I advocate for as well. Another example is Fortress_Louisbourg and Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. (Wikimachine 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wiktionary translates 城 (pronounced "seong" in Korean) as "castle", "city"/"town", or "municipality", BUT NOT "fortress". Therefore, Hwando Seong (丸都城) becomes "Wandu/Hwando City", and not "Wandu/Hwando Fortress". Where's your source for the use of the word "fortress"? I believe your interpretation and usage of "fortress" (in English) amounts to original research.--Endroit 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
성(城) a castle;a fortress;a citadel;a city wall[40] Cydevil38 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did they use modern Korean in Goguryeo? Goguryeo kept all their records in classical Chinese, so I believe you cannot use your modern Korean dictionary to translate the original classical Chinese into English. Don't engage in original research. Get reliable secondary sources in English. For example, Gina Lee Barnes (2001; pp. 165-166) calls Wandu/Hwando a "walled city" (in English).--Endroit 02:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't argue with me b/c I'm a Korean & I know my language. "seong" means any kind of walled fortification. (Wikimachine 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you search the web, you will see that Korean websites sometimes confound the words "fortress" with "city" when translating "Seong" (城, 성) into English. That's just the way it is. However when you say something like "a mountain fortress that served as the second capital of Goguryeo", it's obvious that the correct translation into English for any capital was supposed to be "city" and NOT "fortress". That's as ridiculous as saying "Seoul was the Han fortress (漢城, Han Seong) which served as Joseon Dynasty's capital", and start an article called Han fortress. UNESCO has called Wandu a "city" and I provided the source above. Please provide your source rather than do any original research.--Endroit 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Hanyang and Hanseong. They're both used to describe the capital city Seoul. However, Hanyang is the name for the city, Hanseong is the fortification that surrounds the city. (Wikimachine 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Again, any sources for what you're saying? The Joseon Dynasty article says: "In 1394, Hanyang was declared the new capital and formally renamed "Hanseong".--Endroit 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't know that & I highly doubt that but that article is not sourced either. You can't cite a Wikipedia article. But it doesn't matter - now that I'm fully aware of the situation - Hwando is just like the case with Goguryeo. It may be called Manchuria or Northeast China but Goguryeo was there in its own time with its own name. Same with Hwando. (Wikimachine 19:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It would be shameless for an amateur to ignore Samguk Sagi, which is considered by most Korean history researchers as the "bible" to study ancient history in the region. If you cannot read and cannot understand the fact that "丸都" is the original writing while Wandu/Hwando is merely the modern romanization forms, then you cannot blame other users for being yourself.--Jiejunkong 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only recently figured out that there is a separate page called Hwando fortress. Maybe it would be appropriate to move Hwando to Hwando fortress, but I am against it being moved to Wandu Mountain City. Odst 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hwando_(fortress) is the article created by Cydevil, it is the POV fork of Wandu Mountain City. Hwando_(fortress) must be either deleted or redirected to Wandu Mountain City. Hwando and Hwando fortress are redirect pages, they will eventually be deleted, or redirected to Wandu Mountain City when Hwando_(fortress) is either deleted or redirected to Wandu Mountain City. That is the rule even if you are against it.Wiki Pokemon 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no POV fork. A fortress within a city in the past is different from an article about a modern city. (Wikimachine 04:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Two flaws in your remarks: (1) If you want to call a non-residential ruin as a modern city, then obviously we are not on the same page. (2) Hwando is not the so-called ancient name. At the time the Wandu Mountain City was Goguryeo's capital, people only wrote classical Chinese 丸都. People at that time didn't know nothing about romanization. Hwando is the modern Korean romanization of 丸都, while Wandu is the modern Chinese Pinyin romanization of 丸都.--Jiejunkong 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pathetic. Odst is totally confused about POV forking rules. And all Wikimachine, Odst and Cydevil38 cannot even be consistent about what they are trying to prove. I guess its hard to coordinate to justify something when real, undeniable mistakes are made.Wiki Pokemon 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. How can there by two separate articles - Hwando fortress (redirected to mountain city) and Hwando (fortress)? I'm tired of you POVs. Hwando was a Korean city, it deserves a Korean title within its own context, no matter how it is named today. That's just like limiting Persia to the Iran article. You POVs started the Wandu Mountain City- all these POVish attempts are so laughable. This is exactly like their attempts to move Goguryeo to a Chinese title, etc. Also, I'm moving all titles to redirect to Hwando (fortress). I personally think that Hwando (city) is a better title. (Wikimachine 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So, if this deletion request fails, I'll see that as mandate to move all related articles to Hwando (fortress) & I'll see no opposition. (Wikimachine 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd like to remind the editors here that this is not a matter of differences in romanizations. If it was so, I would have done a WP:RM than create a new article. This is about two articles on two different subjects - the historic Goguryeo city of Hwando and a UNESCO World Heritage Site that's called "Wandu Mountain City". The two are not necessarily the same, and if this deletion doesn't get through, then both "Wandu Mountain City" and "Guonei City" should be merged to Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom. That article has plenty of room for those UNESCO Heritage Sites. Cydevil38 22:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV forks also account for the CONTENT of the article, in case they are meant to be a redirect page. I strongly disagree in moving the contents of Hwando (fortress) to Wandu mountain city. In Korean translation of 城, 城 means fortress. No Korean city was ever officially called OO城. In spoken Rhetoric, the suffix 城 was used to describe that it was in fact a Fortified City. Hanseong was a name used for the city, but its official name was always Hanyang. For Hwando, It was a fortress for much of its early history, and therefore was named Hwando Mountain fortress. Hwando-seong was mostly used in later days to describe the fortified entity which was now a city. It's just like Fort Collins. Fort Collins used to be a trading post, now it's a city. So as I was saying, Hwando is a fortress. There is no real term called "Mountain city"...It's called Mountain fortress. Odst 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the original history record, 尉那巖城 (meaning: Weina Rock City; Pinyin:Weina Yan Cheng; Korean:Wina-am Seong) is the fortress of 國內城 (Pinyin: Guonei Cheng; Korean: Guknae Seong), which became the capital at 3 AD. Later in 198 AD, 尉那巖城 was chosen by Sansang of Goguryeo to be the new capital because 國內城 was sacked and damaged. To be the new capital, 尉那巖城 was renamed as 丸都城 (Meaning: Ball Capital; Pinyin:Wandu; Korean:Hwando). 丸都山城(meaning: Wandu Mountain City; Pinyin:Wandu Shan Cheng; Korean:Hwando San Seong) is also a valid name corresponding to the naming convention of 尉那巖城 (meaning: Weina Rock City) and 五女山城 (i.e.,Goguryeo's first capital). Before the 15th century, every record was written in classical Chinese, and there was no such thing called "Romanization" in the entire east Asia. Therefore, things like 尉那巖城, 國內城, 丸都城 are the ancient names used. In modern time, there are rules about how to romanize these ancient names in different romanization systems, which are not identical in many cases.--Jiejunkong 04:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, the claim that Hwando is the ancient name is a false POV. In contrast, only 丸都 is the ancient name, with Wandu as its Pinyin romanization form and Hwando as its Korean romanization form. In addition, it is also dubious to say that "XYZ城", after translated into "XYZ fortress", became another different entity from "XYZ city". Note that none of the three users with this dubious POV have good credit on East Asia history and linguistics. Their personal claim is not verifiable. Otherwise, they are obliged to show the reliable sources which explicitly claim that "Wandu/Hwando fortress is different from Wandu/Hwando city". Cydevil38 has not stopped changing the article Hwando (fortress). I notice that he has copied some contents from Wandu Mountain City and inserted some dubious claims discussed above. If Hwando (fortress) is merged into Wandu Mountain City, the dubious claims should be filtered.--Jiejunkong 04:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify your sources. Cydevil38 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be copied from Talk:Wandu Mountain City: Seoul National University's Kyujanggak Archives(奎章阁) has the PDF copy of all Samguk Sagi(三國史記), the canonical history record made by Goryeo to record historical events in Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla.
  • In Volume 13(page 18) of Samguk Sagi, it is said "(瑠璃王)二十二年冬十月，王遷都於國內，築尉那巖城"(English translation: On October of the 22nd year (of Yuri of Goguryeo), the Yuri King moved the capital to Guonei, and built the Weina Rock City). A temporal fact is that the 1st year of Yuri of Goguryeo is 19 BC, so the 22nd year is 3 AD. A geographic fact is that Guonei City was a city on Yalu River's plain, while Weina Rock City(尉那巖城) was the city in the mountain which was later renamed to Wandu(丸都) by Sansang of Goguryeo.
  • In Volume 16(page 21] of Samguk Sagi，it is said "(山上王)二年二月築丸都城"(English translation: On February of the 2nd year (of Sansang of Goguryeo), Wandu City was built). In page 23 of the same volume, it is said "(山上王十三年)十月，王移都于丸都"(English translation: On October (of the 13th year of Sansang of Goguryeo), the Sansang King moved the capital to Wandu). Note that the 1st year of Sansang of Goguryeo is 197 AD.
In particular, you need to read the PDF files to see the details, for example, how Gongsun Clan attacked Sansang of Goguryeo because of the conflict between Sansang and his brother. There are more original history record added to Talk:Wandu Mountain City to prove that 國內城 was sacked by Gongsun Clan in the battle. Then Sansang moved the capital to the mountain.--Jiejunkong 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how your sources clarify whether it is a "geographic fact" that Guknaeseong was a city on the plains and Hwandoseong was a city in the mountain. According to the records you cited, it can only be confirmed that 1. King Yuri moved the capital to Guknae(without "seong" or in English, "city") and built Wina-am Seong. 3. King Sansang built Hwando Seong and moved the capital there. And your additional records say nothing of Hwando or a mountain of any sort.
Also, you still didn't provide any sources to the following claims: 1. Wina-am Seong was a "city in the mountain". 2. Wina-am Seong was renamed to Hwando Seong. 3. The basis of the so-called "naming convention" of Wina-am Seong and Wunushancheng(I used Chinese romanization for this, because as far as I know, no such Goguryeo entity ever existed). 4. The basis that "Wunu Mountain City" was the capital of Goguryeo. Cydevil38 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot read sources written in Chinese, you need to seek help from an expert who can read these sources, before you claim anything against other people's explanation of such sources written in Chinese (including Samguk Sagi, the classical source considered by Koreans as their canonical record). Otherwise, it is a quite irresponsible attack against something you don't understand---you prescribed to be hostile against sources written in Chinese while you know prescribing is bad. (1) As to your questions about 國內城: Since you have claimed, in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, that you once were physically in Ji'an, Jilin, you should know that 國內城's ruin is on Tonggou Plain (通溝平原). I posted a reliable source Ji'an, Jilin's official website before, and I am surprised that you have trouble in understanding the geography after you already made the claim that you were there. Have a look at the picture of the city zone of present-day Ji'an, Jilin], 國內城's ruin locates at the southwest near suburban area of the city zone. Here is the picture of 國內城's ruin. It is not in the mountain. I wonder how one can confuse this 國內城's ruin with a city in the mountain. (2) 尉那巖城 (or later renamed as 丸都城/丸都山城 to be the "ball capital") is in the mountain. The Chinese character 巖 (Simplified Chinese:岩; Korean pronunciation:Am) means "Rock", and the Chinese character 山 means "Mountain". This city in the mountain is about 2.5km to the west of present-day Ji'an, Jilin's city zone. The 丸都山城's ruin is actually in a mountain with north side higher than the south side, see the picture shown in here. (3) As you are clearly against these sources, why don't you show your sources to justify your editings? May we see your sources?--Jiejunkong 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided reliable sources in my first "keep" vote in this page that say the actual location of Hwando Seong is controversial. You have yet to provide any sources that reliably concludes that for certain Guknae Seong is the city on the plains and Hwando Seong is the one on the mountain(Sanzishancheng). And you still haven't answered many other requests for sources. Cydevil38 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you post a message to say that you were physically in Ji'an, Jilin in Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It looks like a show-off, which is by no means of fact checking, if you refuse to admit the geographic locations of Guonei City and Wandu Mountain City after you saw where the sites are. Second, Ji'an, Jilin's official website of the city is a reliable source. You may treat it like trash, but its officiality makes it a verifiable and reliable source. Otherwise, any Korean official sites like Seoul city's website cannot be referred to as a reliable source as well. Third, Chinese or Korean gain nothing by dividing 丸都城 from 國內城. Either 丸都城 and 國內城 are the same city, or 丸都城 and 國內城 are different cities, there is nothing favors or disfavors Chinese or Korean. The conclusion that 丸都城 and 國內城 are different cities 2.5km away from each other is drawn based on history records. Fourth, UNESCO's official site explicitly says the Ji'an's site includes archaeological remains of three cities and 40 tombs: Wunu Mountain City, Guonei City and Wandu Mountain City. If your English is good enough, you should know that this sentence refers to an ancient city called "Wandu Mountain City", while its archaeological remains are in Ji'an, Jilin right now. Your persistence in arguing against the clearly written English sentence is not neutral and solid.--Jiejunkong 20:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wandu Mountain City. This seems to be a transliteration war. If Unesco uses the term Wandu Mountain City, then so should WP. I have just edited Wandu Mountain City, so as to eliminate unecessary Chinese or Korean text. However the present article seems to ahve content not in that article. Both articles are quite short and should thus be mereged. Even if the fortess is one elemetn of the city (I do not know), there is no warrant for two separate articles, until a single article becomes too long. I understand the point about the problems of transcription. There is no reason why the alternative transcriptions should not appear in the article, with redirects from alternative versions of the name. If there are problems with the content, they should be resolved on the discussion page of the (merged) article. An AFD debate is not the right forum for this. Peterkingiron 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I support putting all major alternative transcriptions into the article. Hwando fortress, per Cydevil38's claim that this is the Korean term for the place, was considered as the Korean transcription at the beginning (see [[41]]), but Cydevil38 himself deleted it. Currently, it turns out that the term "Hwando fortress" itself is a controversial one which doesn't match the original script 丸都城 written in Samguk Sagi. "Hwando city" looks like the proper Korean transcription.--Jiejunkong 03:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is to be called "Hwando fotress" or "Hwando city" doesn't really concern me, because reliable English publications refer to the place as "Hwando" with various suffixes, such as "song" or "walled city" as well as "fortress". That is a minor dispute that I believe could be resolved without much distress. I only chose the term "fortress" because Doosan Encyclopedia claimed it may have been built as a defensive fortification of Guknae Seong. Again and again, this dispute is not over transliteration, but whether the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Wandu Mountain City can be seen as the equivalent of the historic entity of Wina-am Seong/Hwando Seong. Cydevil38 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wandu Mountain City is about the 2nd capital of Goguryeo written as 丸都 in Samguk Sagi. If you are talking about another city, input proper contents that are not directly related to this 丸都. Otherwise, I agree to Peterkingiron's comments that there is no need to fork the article.--Jiejunkong 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jiejunkong, Are you saying that since it was written in Chinese characters, it should be called Wandu? that is ridiculous. That's like calling New York City Urbs Novum Eboracum, because Americans use the Roman alphabet. Wandu Mountain City is merely a name for UNESCO word heritage, and as Jiejunkong said, there is no romanization in Asia.

The Hwando is unrelated to Wandu mountain city. Hwando is about the fortress-turned capital and its history during ancient times. Wandu Mountain City is about the ruins of that site.Odst 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can claim that I said 丸都 should be translated into Wandu only. In contrast, I support any bilateral notion at the very beginning (see wikirecords [[42]], [[43]], [[44]]). And please stop trolling on the terms "fortress" and "city". There are many native English speakers here who can tell which one to use. For the Chinese character 城 (in the name 丸都城 originally recorded in the canonical history, e.g., Volume 16(page 21) of Samguk Sagi), it means "city". In Chinese, another character 堡 means "fortress".--Jiejunkong 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of the above is precisely why I called for a Speedy close at the outset. Let the WP:RFC/HIST or WikiProject History sort out naming and scope issues before merging, deleting or rediecting anything. Dbromage [Talk] 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unfortunately though, Jiejunkong seems reluctant to file a WP:RFC/HIST as advised. Cydevil38 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead what should be an AFD discussion has turned into a rehash of the content dispute that started it all. Is any admin prepared to call a speedy close until impartial experts in WikiProject History decide on the naming and scope issues? Dbromage [Talk] 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD is about POV FORKING, not content dispute. Wikipedia standard policy requires a SPEEDY DELETE to such an article. No exception. This is a SERIOUS violation because failure to observe this rule will cause chaos and disruptions to the entire Wikipedia system. Dbromage [Talk] and Odst are suggesting that the POV fork be kept while debate continues is totally unacceptable. Wikipedia recomendation is exactly the opposite, delete the POV fork, then continue consensus building at the original article. Nlu is an administrator, I think he has explained above how such situation should be delt with. Wiki Pokemon 08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a candidate for speedy deletion it could have been speedy deleted 5 days ago. We only have the nominator's assertion that it is a POV fork. The article creator's assertion is it is about a different subject. This is what the RFC was supposed to sort out. I consider this to be a very bad faith nom in ignoring the recommendation of the WQA to take it to RFC. Dbromage [Talk] 13:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these are two different and independent articles, then there is no need to take both articles to RFC like you suggest, each can carry on happily. But that is not the case. By the way the RFC is for the original article only. Unlike what you think, the RFC is not for deciding which rival article is better and to keep. Contradictory to your comment, Wikipedia does not recommend WQA to take it to RFC in this situation. Wikipedia recommendation is to delete the rival article because of bad faith of the author(Cydevil)of the rival article(Hwando (fortress)). So far all your comments are contradictory to Wikipedia policy. Nlu is an administrator, he is familiar with the rules. Please read his comment above.Wiki Pokemon 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Dbromage. This IS the right forum for discussing whether an article should be deleted or merged or kept. It encourages editors and admins, otherwise unrelated to the topic, to comment. If it isn't discussed here, it goes back to the "slow track" at Talk:Hwando (fortress) / Talk:Wandu Mountain City. The slow track could take over 6 months to resolve, as was the case for Talk:State of Nangnang / Talk:Lelang Commandery.--Endroit 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a rule on Wikipedia that says "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I maintain that this nomination is bad faith. Dbromage [Talk] 23:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Assume good faith.--Endroit 09:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just this, but everything else - for these same guys. This is in no way a POV fork but basically an attempt to correct a POVish attempt (especially Jiejunkong's, whose goal is to make Korean "Chinese") to create a new article about a Korean subject for which there was none before --> this sets stage for the "POV fork" accusation when ppl try to correct that. (Wikimachine 01:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Why are you, a ultra Korean nationalist, labeling other people with all kinds of bad faith words? You said my goal is to make Korean "Chinese"? Oh, am I capable of doing that? or is it your imagination? If you cannot read Samguk Sagi and Twenty-Four Histories, that's not my problem, I didn't write those books in classical Chinese. And you have no right to override the history with modern politics.--Jiejunkong 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, putting aside the naming issue for this article, consensus also appears to favor merging the 2 articles Hwando (fortress) and Wandu Mountain City, while dropping the "fortress" designation.--Endroit 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect is one more than merge.Wiki Pokemon 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. I should have said that there is clear consensus AGAINST keeping the 2 articles Hwando (fortress) and Wandu Mountain City separate. Even Wikimachine's comment here suggested there shouldn't be 2 separate articles.
Let me add that since these 2 articles talk about the same thing in principle, a "merge" would have a similar effect as a "redirect" (and vice versa). Since some people disagree as to the naming of the article, a WP:RM should be initiated immediately after the impending "merge" / "redirect".--Endroit 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take it then that these editors who agreed to "merge" or "redirect" would also agree that the article on "Wandu Mountain City" should primarily represent that of the historic Goguryeo entity, not its possible candidates for its remains today. Cydevil38 04:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch for your WP:POINT violations, Cydevil. The cited sources in English provide the basis for the article contents, per WP:V, rather than your gross misinterpretations. We all know that Wandu / Hwando are different romanizations of the same thing. The only thing people disagree on is the title of the "merged" / "redirected" article, which should have been settled by WP:RM procedure in the first place, rather than your creation of a WP:POVFORK.--Endroit 04:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endroit, please assume good faith and don't make such accusations and assumptions about other people's edits. I have repeatedly expresed my disagreement with what the two articles should represent - one should be about the historic entity, while the other should be about a possible candidate for the historic entity's remains that recently has been designated the UNESCO World Heritage Site. Cydevil38 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one Wandu/Hwando (丸都) in the history of Goguryeo. UNESCO has declared their heritage site to be this Wandu/Hwando (丸都), by calling it "Wandu Mountain City". Any significant disagreements to this UNESCO decision can be mentioned in the same article, if such disagreements exist, and if you can provide a reputable source for them. No sense having 2 articles for the same thing.--Endroit 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a move to Wandu Mountain City & then in the move provide 2 options - vote for Hwando or vote for Wandu & clarify that this move is two-sided. (Wikimachine 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please don't get creative with the procedure. Stick with the procedure provided for by Wikipedia one at a time. First thing to do is to settle this POV fork violation through redirect. Then WP:RM if you want.Wiki Pokemon 06:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can if I want to, & I'll take that as a compliment. Or else there will be 2 RMs - one from Wandu to Hwando & another Hwando to Wandu. Who's going to yield? (Wikimachine 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced, and I can't find any reliable sources that would meet WP:V which is over-riding policy. The question of merging all the cats into one article is a matter for post-AfD editorial action, merge-tagging and discussion, not for here. TerriersFan 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petra (cat)[edit]

A cat who lived in Downing Street, London- nothing notable about this particular cat, and no sources to back up even his existence Astrotrain 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There has been a Downing Street cat since the days of Henry VIII.[45] Don't knock 500 years of tradition! :) The official Downing Street mouser in Churchill's time was named Margate. Dbromage [Talk] 10:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and dubious notability. If a source can be found, suggest merging into 10 Downing Street. Jakew 13:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all including Wilberforce (cat) and Humphrey (cat) into one article on the 10 Downing Street cats. Somewhat notable but we don't need an article on each of them. --Dhartung | Talk 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all. I normally prefer not to mark my comments as strong, but in this case I'm going to make an exception. The idea that the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion, is absurd. I defy the author to show us any reliable independent secondary sources that address this matter in detail, and in a non-trivial manner (as required by WP:N). —gorgan_almighty 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a detailed article, but that doesn't make it an acceptable article. I agree that the publishers of the cited sources are normally regarded as reliable, but in this case they only mention the subject in jest. This is one of those awkward cases where even the most reliable sources allow a non-notable, trivial article, because they think it will amuse their readers. But just because they do, doesn't mean Wikipedia can. I think we need to go further than WP:N in order to assess notability here. Anyone object to testing it against WP:BIO?? —gorgan_almighty 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why we should take ourselves any more seriously than these esteemed sources. That being said, perhaps merging all these cats into some kind of combined article would be best. We have List of United States Presidential pets, after all. --Agamemnon2 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 10 Downing Street cats per Dhartung. Ichormosquito 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fairly obviously fails notability. I've certainly not heard of him, unlike Humphrey, and I'm quite in to these things (animals and politics). Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unsourced article on a cat. Merge if we must. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung, definitely notable. Circeus 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung, Downing Street cats are notable, individual Downing Street cats less so. — The Storm Surfer 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung. If there were more on this cat, it would deserve a full-fledged article. vivacissamamente 15:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment True, but if it's all merged then that's going to mean that Humphrey's article, which does have a lot on it, is going too. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't understand. Do you mean to tell me that if Humphrey's article were supplemented with the content (such as it is) of this one, you would also demand that article be deleted too? I don't know how otherwise to parse your comment. —vivacissamamente 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment You said that if there were more on this cat it'd deserve its own article. But if it is merged then Humphrey's article (which does have a lot on it) would also be merged. Do you see? I'm not very good at expressing myself sorry. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a cat. Just because one 10 downing street cat was famous (because a very desperate politician spread a rumour that Tony Blair shot it) does not mean that they are all notable. I don't see much point in a merge- what would the article contain other than a list of cat names? Lurker (said · done) 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you believe that a list of 10 Downing Street cats would not be appropriate for Wikipedia? — The Storm Surfer 22:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • An article about 10 Downing Street cats would be appropriate, it if had more content than just a list of names. Lurker (said · done) 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember that once the merge has taken place, any original research in it will get removed pretty quickly. That begs the question of whether it's worth merging obvious original research content into the new article at all. —gorgan_almighty 12:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific superpowers[edit]

Scientific superpowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Neologism, Notability, Verifiability, OR Sijo Ripa 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this page violates several guidelines. Secondly, my remarks on the talk page nor the warning templates resulted in any effort to address these concerns, which eventually led me to nominate this page for deletion:

  1. WP:NEO. The article does not prove that the term "scientific superpower" is recognized and used as a "concept" or "term" (as opposed to the mere occasional combination of an adjective (scientific) and a substantive (superpower)).
  2. WP:N. Even if this would be used as a specific concept (which is doubtful), it does not seem to have gained a real acceptance. While the google test is not a perfect way to measure this, it can be an indicator: "Scientific superpower" only gains 924 google hits (and some of these hits are Wikipedia database dump copies of this article or references to this Wikipedia article), which could mean that it violates WP:N (among others: "significant coverage"). Apparently, it now gets about 9,000 hits.
  3. WP:V. The article does not provide any references.
  4. WP:OR. Uncited facts are combined to advance a position (i.e. that a particular country is a scientific superpower), which constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH (and possible WP:NPOV). Sijo Ripa 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, complete synthesis. --Eyrian 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - appears to be some wotrdfs that have been used in conjuction, rather than a true neologism. The 'definition" appears to be OR. Artw 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tried to qualify some of the opinions given in the article, but it's probably best to just delete it... the whole premise of the article is OR. --Nucleusboy 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - orginal research. --Oscarthecat 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohhh, that kind of superpowers... Man, I was let down by the actual article. Alas, deletion appears to be the way to go, per nominator's rationale. --Agamemnon2 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was 99% sure it was going to turn out to be some kind of Warren Ellis fancruft. Artw 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL I, too, was expecting an article about bionics, x-ray eye implants, and other scientific attempts to give people superpowers (besides the obvious ones of exposing oneself to radioactive fallout and imbibing toxic chemicals). Disappointment notwithstanding, this is an unsourced ranking of which nations supply our planet with bionics, x-ray eye implants, radioactive fallout and toxic chemicals. No source, no cites, no service! Mandsford 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete delete!!! Per nom, and everyone else. KTC 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IP198 18:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_24&oldid=1116877819"