Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 9 December 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete, though the subject article Vadim Seero was deleted on 20 December as part of a separate debate, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heikki Talimaa + 15 others. This debate appears to have been a malformed offshoot of that debate. As the article is already deleted, and the existing debate already closed, I'm closing this debate as well. Non-admin closure. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Seero[edit]

Vadim_Seero (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 delete. Coredesat 05:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo_Feofiloff[edit]

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

In my opinion, the person to which this article is related does not warrant a Wikipedia page. This is not meant as an offense, of course: the immense majority of people in the world does not warrant a Wikipedia article! Indeed, having such an article in Wikipedia can inclusively become a nuisance for a common (living) person, specially when it is totally irrelevant as this one is. Moreover, the object of the article himself does not consider the article to be necessary, as can be seen by the comment left by him in the Talk Page. For this reason, I think this article should be deleted. NaaktGeboren (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — NaaktGeboren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Weak keep, seems to have multiple contributions to his field per his official page. The fact that this AfD is the nom's only contribution seems a little fishy. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article doesn't make a claim to notability, and his web page isn't working. As for inspiring in both form and content: that's a claim to be Spam. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no real claim of notability, article fairly peacock-heavy, and subject has requested deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete.Hurd. The professor's webpage is now working, and does list a number of papers that he's authored, but at best his notability is questionable. When a person of questionable notability requests deletion, I favor honoring the request. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subject's request. Unless it's a slam dunk case of extreme notability we should delete in these instances without further comment on the subject. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must dispute the policy Myke supports: What the subject actually said is that he's not notable. He's probably right; but that is one (well-informed) editor's opinion. And allowing people to delete articles on them on demand is a form of censorship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as probably notable. I think the policy that we pay attention to the subjects wishes in cases like this is an error. It is incompatible with the core policy of NPOV, and therefore invalid regardless of the unfortunate fact that it had consensus. time we realised that. DGG (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sune (algorithm)[edit]

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

Subject of article is not notable and is written like a how-to guide. This algorithm is only one of many that a typical speedcuber uses and does not merit inclusion. Paiev (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Actually, this technique is known under several names, none of which are notable. One comment, though... when the subject of an article is an algorithm, the article will sound like a how-to guide just by virtue of explaining the algorithm and what it is used for. So be careful, in situations like this, about invoking WP:NOT#HOWTO. See Quicksort. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I only mentioned WP:NOT#HOWTO because of the tone that the article was written in. Paiev (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an independently notable topic; at most, might merit some mention on Rubik's Cube. --Russ (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellsworth Kalas[edit]

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

Non-notable theologian. The article's been here for 9 months, so I didn't think a speedy deletion was appropriate. Corvus cornixtalk 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : He's the interim president of an accredited seminary with over 1,000 students. Certainly meets a minimal standard of notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks notable to me, per A.B.'s Google search. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A speedy deletion would never have been appropriate, for even in its earliest version it made a claim of notability, with two honorary degrees. I am startled to think it was even considered. DGG (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having honorary degrees make somebody notable by default? Corvus cornixtalk 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notable enough to not warrant a speedy delete, as it is an indication that the awarding institution thought that he was notable enough to be honored. Not necessarily enough to keep an article from prod or AfD, especially if one were of the belief that the claim were bogus, but speedy delete is for articles with absolutely zero reasons anyone (other than the author) would be likely to object. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 would need a serious cleanup, on a tone side. Deleted, I can provide a working copy to someone interested in rewriting it from scratch. -- lucasbfr talk 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility of Survival of Romanovs[edit]

A possibility of Survival of Romanovs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research, despite the numerous references. The article was created with the hangon tag, so it appears to have been copied from somewhere where it has previously been tagged for speedy deletion, but there's no indication of this in the article's history, so I have no idea where it came from originally. Corvus cornixtalk 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkFierceDeityLink (talk · contribs) created earlier drafts of the article at Last of the Murdered Russian Royal Family Found and A possibility of Survival. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with House of Romanov. Should the references be properly placed, and be written less like an advertisement, I think the material here could be usable. However, it does not warrant it's own page. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename and cleanup. Right now it's written in a sensationalistic, rather POV fashion, but it does raise a few points. bibliomaniac15 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. The House of Romanov also discusses this issue although it needs work on sourcing. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All of this is my Original research and I wont lie its my high school term paper that I got and 95% on but I also had to write a page for each of my sources. I don't mind if you Merge it. And also the last part of the page was from the news and History channel.--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to House of Romanov talk page from whence it may have originated. Epthorn (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with House of Romanov where this article certainly belongs.Osli73 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1st of all almost every thing on this web site is original research. 2nd it has to do with the the Romanovs do to the fact i used history books web sites etc. like House of Romanov they prob used history books their notes from school etc. And this is something i work very hard on and people did say it did raise facts thats not mentioned. if you guys dislike it i'll remove it.--DarkFierceDeityLink 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on this site is original research. WP:OR explains why we do not accept original research. See also WP:SYNTH. Corvus cornixtalk 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the stuff I stated is true its in history book history channel and on other pages of the Romanovs.--DarkFierceDeityLink 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article creator says it's original research, this is the only real option. Edward321 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"" Ok how about this help me fix it so it could be usable.--DarkFierceDeityLink 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments refactored. DrKiernan (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Contrary to statements above, this is not "original research" as I understand the term. It is original writing, of course, but so is everything else on Wikipedia (ideally). It is a summary of materials published elsewhere, with references provided. However, I'm voting merge because the article is duplicative of information appearing on House of Romanov, and I don't see any need for a second article on this topic. --Russ (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry[edit]

Chelsea F.C. and FC Barcelona football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable rivalry compared to Celtic-Rangers, Real Madrid-Barcelona, Milan-Inter, etc. – PeeJay 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Disagree: If the article was less detailed you might have a point, but Chelsea-Barcelona has been one of the single biggest grudge matches in recent years in the Champions League. Yes, compared with Celtic-Rangers or Boca-River it is a new rivalry but in modern European football there are scarcely two teams who want to beat each other more than Chelsea and Barcelona. There have been innumerable high-profile incidents, accusations and so on, listed in the article. Ask any TV channel director in a country like Poland, Romania, Slovenia or so on with no domestic interest in the Champions League and it's always the first match they choose for live coverage because it's the biggest rivalry. Mjefm (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: Gabriele Marcotti, no less, describes Chelsea-Barça thus: link. If Sports Illustrated, an American magazine not known for focusing on football, notes it, it must be considered notable. Mjefm (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge there seems to be encyclopedic content here, but it's more about Jose Mourinho versus other coaches and a referree than about a rivalry, which I always thought was between fans. I'd like to see the article merged to the main pages for the teams and coaches than consigned to its own page. Perhaps the creator of this page was forced out of those pages, and made this page so he could put the information somewhere? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - you could create this sort of media-generated "rivalry" for any pair of clubs who meet three or four times. Not notable, as per nom. - fchd (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fchd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if this is allowed, we could end up with almost limitless international club rivalries between clubs that have met each other more than once in international competitions. AC Milan-Celtic, Liverpool-Roma, Liverpool-Marseille, Chelsea-Valencia, Bayern Munich-Real Madrid..... King of the NorthEast 11:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as per fchd and Fee Fi Foe Fum.   Jhony  |  Talk   15:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable recentism. MLA (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the reason CL rivalries are regarded as less important is because they rely heavily on chance (you have to actually be drawn against the team you're facing). Also, Chelsea have only recently become major contenders in Europe (I guess since Abramovich arrived), so any CL rivalry involving them will inherently be a case of "recentism". Can you name another rivalry between clubs from different countries (or, to be more precise, different domestic leagues) that is as strong as Chelsea/Barcelona? ugen64 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - so you're saying that we should keep the article because the Chelsea/Barcelona rivalry is as strong as or stronger than, say, the rivalry between Chester City and Wrexham or Cardiff City and Bristol City? I think that's a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that you're bringing up there. There are very few rivalries between clubs in different countries, and since the Chelsea-Barcelona "rivalry" is only a few years old, this is very much a case of WP:RECENTISM. – PeeJay 09:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable rivalry, and I don't really want plenty of articles about football rivalries of any kind. --Angelo (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Berger[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Ros0709 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: has previously had speedy delete tags but another editor removed them, so moved here for consideration. Ros0709 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, possibly vanity-self promotion page. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like an autobiography, subject is apparently not notable. Fails WP:BIO -FrankTobia (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources could be found to support notability. Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI issues based on the user name of the article author. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Church[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. No references provided and none found for such a Los Angeles church during a fairly extensive Google search for both Kala Church and Kalas Church (in case it was a spelling error). See also an accompanying IfD for the image on this page which was uploaded by the creator of this article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Kalas. Corvus cornixtalk 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think the hoaxter probably used Kalas' name to provide some degree of verisimilitude to their work. But since I can't find any mention of this church he supposedly inspired in anything about him (or even a connection to Los Angeles) I don't think the status of that article has any bearing on this one. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish even existence much less notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Powell[edit]

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

Non notable; claims of future fame. — BillC talk 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete backyard wrestlers are not notable unless they have done something stupendously special, and I can find no evidence that this 13-year old has done anything special. Couldn't it have been speedied under A7? "Soon to be champion" of a backyard fed isn't really a claim to notability...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non notable. If he winds up on YouTube for killing himself or somebody else during backyard wrestling idiocy, then he might become notable. Corvus cornixtalk 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete to nip this sort of thing in the bud.Epthorn (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Speedy Delete I can't believe this wasn't speedied either per Chris The Dude TaintedZebra (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Victuallers (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; will redirect to Seven Samurai; merging may be done later as needed. Mangojuicetalk 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kikuchiyo[edit]

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the its two main articles (List of Samurai 7 characters and Seven Samurai), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the Context section asserts notability, admittedly without references, contra the nominator's claim. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Seven Samurai. Any necessary merging can be done later. Mangojuicetalk 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuzo[edit]

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the its two main articles (List of Samurai 7 characters and Seven Samurai), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been hoping someone from the Japan project would comment on whether notability sources are available in Japanese. In silence, though, let's untangle this assuming no notability. Per WP:FICT, the second thing to do (after searching for references) is merge, not delete. But where is, contra Eusebeus, not self-evident, and not only because the Trivia section contains notability assertions (in need of better citations) -- this is a character who appears in multiple fictional works with separate articles. Fortunately, the appearences are clearly marked. So: merge Film Version and Trivia sections (marked as citation needed, as that's a cleanup not deletion issue) into Seven Samurai, and the Anime Version section into Samurai 7. Because the latter is the derivative version of the character, the redirect left behind should point to Seven Samurai. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Coredesat 05:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004-05 Barcelona Juvenil A[edit]

2004-05 Barcelona Juvenil A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Youth teams should not have individual season articles, especially not ones in as poor a state as this. – PeeJay 22:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

2005-06 Real Madrid Juvenil A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Fox[edit]

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

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles (though a small section under List of characters in the Star Fox series#Star Fox team may be warranted), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, nomination in bad taste Okay, now you're just disrupting wikipedia to make a point, whatever point that is. From your actions, I'm assuming you're intent on deleting whatever Star Fox-related articles there are, as you've nominated MULTIPLE Star Fox articles for deletion. I don't know why you have such a bias against Star Fox-related articles. Saying they're not notable or have no "real world information" are not an excuses or reasons. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nomination in bad taste You have been recently nominating A lot of video game related articles, some I actually agree with, but most of them I see as bad taste. You suggested a merge for King DeDeDe, but despite major opposition with very little support, you carry through. I had prepared to introduce some more resources today and found that you decided to carry through anyway. Blood dripping on the ground 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you guys don't plan on adding Real-world info to the articles, then there's no reason they should exist. It's the rules. -- ZeroGiga 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See WP:FICT (or the more stable WP:N) - articles on fiction need reliable, secondary sources. I don't see any of that, and articles that are derived solely from the original fictional work can only restate the plot or engage in original research. --Phirazo 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gameguide, has no sources for real-world notability. An editor who nominates a lot of unsourced gameguide articles for deletion should be praised, not accused of disruption. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless some suitable merge target can be found. Too long to be included in the main 'Star Fox' article. Might go in a 'List of Star Fox ships' if there is such a thing, but otherwise fine where it is. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to organize articles in a logical manner rather than cramming everything onto one page. Nom seems like WP:POINT. Et cetera - same issues as the other dozen articles. --CBD 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's too long because it's full of in-universe, gameguide, unencyclopedic "information". Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I have noticed that you have been posting links within his talk page. Your comments and posts are similar too. I think your accounts are connected some way. Blood dripping on the ground 18:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Game guide cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete- This article is pure gamecruf, completely failing WP:RS, this should not have been brought back in the first place. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article wholly lacking any reliably sourced claims to real-world notability. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to merge - This article should be merged with a Starfox location page or Starfox series page. 68.60.62.128 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a recitation of in-game information. No information to show notability outside of the game itself. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Kept Secret (Leona Lewis album)[edit]

Best Kept Secret (Leona Lewis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I created this article on hearing that this album had been released, however, on checking regularly, I have never seen the album available online, so I'm doubting that I should have created this in the first place. Although it is well sourced, it is also covered in the article about Leona Lewis. anemone│projectors 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffanie Story[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Only one other Miss Nevada has a page on Wiki, and she's Dawn Wells, who's actually famous. Bouncehoper (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sfacets 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources cited within the article, and most of the other sources I'm seeing are trivial (one-off mentions but no in-depth coverage).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deletion because of copyvio reasons. While I did argue for keep, perhaps I am the only admin who has seen this so I am closing it. I hope someone can recreate it as we are indeed short of good articles on African academics. Bduke (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Akwasi Asabere Ameyaw[edit]

Prof. Akwasi Asabere Ameyaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic Ra2007 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-promotional? I can find a few hits - [1] - but the subject still seems non-notable. Shiva Evolved (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs major cleanup. An academic who becomes a university Vice-Chancellor is pretty well clearly notable. There has to be sources. Of course in some countries the sources may be harder to find as possibly in this case. It just needs sources and rewriting. --Bduke (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Article has needed cleanup since October 2007 or earlier. Recommend delete. Can be recreated if notability established. Ra2007 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Our coverage of African academics is thin, deletion of this article would make it thinner, and it looks like he is likely notable (per Bduke) although the article could do a better job of convincing us of that; it's not easy to pick out the important points in the article as written among the routine academic work chaff. But cleanup is not a good reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The whole article is lifted from here, which I wish I'd known before I made a bunch of minor coypedits to it (I don't mean that to sound snippy). Esrever (klaT) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per copyright violation. Article can be recreated later by interested contributors. Ra2007 (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per ra2007, and i am the one actully trying to save the article.ive put it in a temporary location with a few changes and refs.Sunderland06 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that it is notable enough with sources added being judged to be sufficient. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Mall[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since September with no improvements. Overwhelming majority of GHits are an infinite number of cookie-cutter websites with showtimes for the mall's theater; no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Biggest in the city isn't enough; most malls are the biggest in their city since a lot of smaller towns and regions only have one mall. Besides the fact that this mall has a ton of big box anchors (which seems to be a pattern for Pyramid owned malls), there's nothing that makes this one more than marginally notable outside its community. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been discussed in other AfD's, there is no 'locality' clause in WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Size and scope, accompanied by the sources provided, support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough, also has reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 19:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Entertainment Network[edit]

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

Not notable. Conflict of interest due to owner of "TDEN" is creator and editor of the article. Do not confuse with Digital Entertainment Network. For more information on "TDEN", see [2]. Cyborg Ninja (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this article was created as a result of concerns raised about copyright issues (which are discussed in this article) and were discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 19#Digital Entertainment Network and The Digital Entertainment Network. That discussion covered conflict of interest and notability issues, with no definite conclusion on the latter point. Although notability is marginal, involvement with the more infamous Digital Entertainment Network is supported by a New York Post article of 2002 and the existence of the two articles ensures that the two firms relationship or actually lack thereof is recorded which seems a useful thing to do given the copyright issues which are supported by searches of the US Patent office's registers (and the NY Post article). This is marginal on notability but is a useful disambiguation point and does not breach WP:Spam. The company owner has sought to understand and abide by wikipedia guidleines and policies (after discussions) as opposed to the inference in the nomination above. I created the article and am the only editor - I am not connected with the company in any way and only came to the issue through the COI noticeboard. --Matilda talk 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being sued by a now bankrupt company is no grounds for notability. The NYP article refers to them as the other DEN, not the DEN that blew through millions. -- lucasbfr talk 11:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable company. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DJ Clayworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview Plaza[edit]

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

Not sure why this page wasn't deleted; it was bundled with Edgelake Plaza in a previous discussion. Anyway, this page is bloated with indiscriminate info and fails WP:RS; a search online could barely even confirm that it existed (since it evidently closed in the 1990s and was a very small mall). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I've tagged with {{db-afd}}, which was made for cases in which an admin closing an AfD forgot to delete an article. Deor (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about it either until I pointed out to an admin that he'd forgotten to delete one article in a group AfD that he'd closed. He said that I should have just slapped that tag on the article, so it stuck in my mind. Deor (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Yoga[edit]

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

Obscure neologism, may deserve one sentence mention in Yoga article, but not entire article. Sfacets 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yes, I know the discussion was only open for two hours, but eight valid "keep"s in only two hours is a lot, so I don't think that I'm applying WP:SNOW out of haste (especially since the article was improved during the discussion). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brigantine Yankee[edit]

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

unencyclopedic Ra2007 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- we have 1000s of articles about notable historic ships. Take a look at the Irving Johnson article -- it includes numerous books and National Geographic articles about Johnson's travels in this sailing ship. --A. B. (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is new, one month old, and should be worked up. It has book references. It is a notable last of line. Link to Irving Johnson page.ClemRutter (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This ship is notable for being captured during WWI and especially for its subsequent well-documented travels with the Johnsons. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially after Woody (talk · contribs)'s excellent cleanup and wikification. TomTheHand (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent is a wee bit much, I did what I can for now. It piqued my interest. :) Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I gave it a quick copyedit, WP:MOS fixes and a better hook in the WP:LEAD. I disagree with the nominator that it is unencyclopedic. I believe it conforms to the relevant guidelines as it is notable, as is shown by the plentiful sources. Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per A.B. Clearly encyclopedic. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable; featured in Captain Villers' National Geographic book "Men, Ships and the Sea". Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously "encyclopedic". Nick mallory (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berkley Mall - Goldsboro[edit]

Berkley Mall - Goldsboro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small mall in North Carolina, fails WP:RS. An online search turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr talk 12:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy X[edit]

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

Non-notable head of a non-notable indie record label. No independent sources cited. Fails WP:MUSIC will381796 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The sources cited by the article suggest that the subject is notable, though they could be better used. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Daddy X is a notable person that belongs to a notable band. I think he's good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.152.109 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 December 2007
  • Strong keep. Please read Kottonmouth Kings and note that this guy is their frontman. The article needs improving, but that's a good reason to improve an article and a bad reason to nuke one. tomasz. 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fib (poetry)[edit]

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

Basically this article asserts notability but does not sufficiently establish it. The two sources are a blog and a NY times article that uses the blog and blog author as it's source. Fails WP:WEB and WP:BK. Since the article only mentions the one author, it's borderline promotional material. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So
that's
a good
reason to
keep this article
to read in Wikipedia
--A. B. (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:BK doesn't apply, since it's an article about not a book but a poetic form. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per AB. Media coverage is easy to find. Zagalejo^^^ 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per AB. Notability has been established. An article has also been posted on poetryfoundation.org, which I have just linked in a new external links section. Aleta (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability demonstrated by AB. Lawrence Cohen 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Square Mall[edit]

Dutch Square Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping mall in South Carolina. Tagged for refs since August with no improvement. A search for information turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this newspaper has several articles.... I just dont have the required Javascript enabled on this terminal. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mall is smaller then what generally qualifies as notable in the US. No assertion of notability in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size has nothing to do with notability. Unless you think a Quark is not notable also? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Power Yoga[edit]

Progressive Power Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable, possibly spam, does not merit own article. Sfacets 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When you remove the unverified assertions of fluff, there's no content left. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Contact me if you want to transwiki. Coredesat 05:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Egg[edit]

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

This is a fictional location that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in Dr. Eggman and the games that it appears, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT. We need to get more efficient at this. Changing to Redirect to Dr. Eggman per User:Sceptre below. User:Krator (t c) 22:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krator. Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, nomination in bad taste, user of sockpuppets. I think TTN is using sockpuppets, specifically Krator and Shiva Evolved. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That's a serious accusation. Your evidence? -Verdatum (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RingtailedFox, I can assure you that these editors are not sock-puppets of TTN (and neither am I). I advice you politely to not let wikistress get to you so that you do and say things that you later regret. – sgeureka t•c 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading what a sockpuppet is, I must say I am a little amused rather than taking offense. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to show WP:N. WP:RS. Redundant information to other articles that does not appear worthy or needing of a fork. -Verdatum (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly transwiki if someone wants it, per nom and also per WP:NOT#GUIDE. It is unlikely that there's significant secondary coverage anywhere, making even a merge seem unfeasonable though not impossible. – sgeureka t•c 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, i make sure i say the right things before posting them. My evidence for this? they all compliment each other on their actions, all follow each other (and me) to nominate video-game-related articles for merge or (preferrably) deletion, and they have the same spelling patterns., with things as "he's a fantastic contributer", or "we need to get better at this" (this being mass-nominating articles for deletion using bots). RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Checkuser if you're sure, anything else just muddies the water. The reason that these articles are AfD'ed is because they fail too many policies and guidelines to be "repaired", nothing else. If you wish to avoid AfD (a reasonable thing), bring articles in line with policies and guidelines before the chance of AfD comes up. Sometimes, this may not be possible at all, and the only option is to AfD. – sgeureka t•c 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after transwiki'ing to Sonic News Network wiki if they want it - article entirely consisting of in-universe details with no sources establishing real-world notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dr. Eggman. It's a plausible search term, but can't go to either Sonic 2 or Sonic 3. Will (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources, no notability claimed outside of Sonic the Hedgehog. A redirect after the deletion may be a good idea, though; redirects are cheap. --Phirazo 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado (Sonic the Hedgehog)[edit]

Tornado (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a fictional vehicle that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in Miles "Tails" Prower, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour in popular culture[edit]

Parkour in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is simply a cluttered trivial list. Wikipedia isn't a directory. The sourcing appears to be poor as well, as much of it is links to music videos where parkour is featured. This seems to be yet another "let's move the clutter from the main article, into a never ending new clutter". Being a popular thing for music videos can be explained with a few examples in a paragraph or so, on the main article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A comprehensive list is not necessary. Merge some of the most significant appearances (preferably using reliable sources to determine significance) into the main Parkour article. Powers T 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please no, the consensus was to split this section to a new article, and we should not merge back due to issues with article size. Parkour will never be featured with this section, because people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing. And how will you get consensus for what is "most significant appearances" and "insignificant appearances"? No you cannot because that is a lot subjective, what you think is not significant to you will be to another person. There is no way to say that Generation Yamakasi documentary is more significant than Madonna - Jump video. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, two people does not a consensus make. Second of all, the way to deal with persistent additions of inappropriate material is to remove it when it appears, not create a "holding area" where bad edits can go. We determine what's significant the same way we do it throughout the encyclopedia: by appealing to reliable, independent sources. Powers T 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, what make a consensus is the power of arguments NOT the number of people. Second, the way to do with your premature and bite view as "inappropriate material" and "bad edits" is to wait someone to fix the edits, warn every user to use independent sources when editing Wikipedia, or remove the original research after failed to find sources. Warning users is not even possible and difficult due to dynamic IPs. Third, it is unacceptable someone who think that Generation Yamakasi a reliable 71 minutes documentary with experienced practitioners of Yamakasi group, thinks that is insignificant due to lack of independent source, this documentary almost did not received any attention of independent and reliable sources, still it is very useful and must be cited. According to your logic this documentary is insignificant compared to Sébastien Foucan chase on Casino Royale (2006 film) and his participation on Madonna - Jump music video, since there is a lot of references for these. Fourth, please do not state issues with featured article criteria and article size, with your "holding area" view of a sourced article. Fifth, we determine what is notable and non-notable using independent sources not what is "significant" and "insignificant". Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 23:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my wording was unclear. Let me try to be more clear. You suggested that without this article, people will add every instance of pop-culture references to the main article. We agree that this is undesirable. Unfortunately, creating this article as a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references" is not the way Wikipedia deals with that undesirable issue. The way Wikipedia deals with it is to revert those changes when they occur. Is there a reason that this is not a feasible option? Powers T 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a place to put "every instance of pop-culture references", but there is nothing wrong to state, which practitioners and what happened with scenes of parkour in Madonna, Paul Oakenfold and Sugababes music videos. Same goes television references in Top Gear (current format), David Belle's (founder of parkour) rush hour in BBC One; and film references, where there is blatant scenes of parkour. This article obviously needs improvement, but merging does not help.
I explained why removing what you think is "bad edits" is not a good option using Generation Yamakasi documentary. Parkour Journeys and Jump Westminster are other examples, which does not received attention from independent sources.
More ahead, Sugababes, Assassin's Creed, Casino Royale, and Top Gear were unreferenced. According to your logic, they are insignificant and should be reverted or removed, because they were unreferenced, but in a easy search I found references from Fox News and The Guardian. So, no this is not a feasible option. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting words into my mouth. You apparently do not understand what I'm saying, because "according to my logic" such significant references would not be reverted or removed. Look, you're the one who said that without this article, there would be too many references placed into the main article. You said: "people will re-add every time a citation in book, film, documentary, video game, etc, if they are missing" and because of that, the main article will never reach Featured status. What I'm saying, and what others here are saying, is that the solution to that problem is to remove the edits that don't belong, not to create a new article where those edits are allowed. I'm sorry I brought up the term "bad edits", but you're the one who said they don't belong in the main article, not me. Powers T 14:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Parkour. Creating a dumping ground for bad edits is a bad idea. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when merging this article to parkour will avoid your biased view of "bad edits"? Merging to parkour does not fix anything of your "dumping ground for bad edits", and this article was originally split from main article. So yours "dumping ground of bad edits" was in the main article. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - If there were bad edits in the parent article, then they should have been removed in the parent article. When merging back, you can boldly trim out the excess. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you do not need to merge back to remove the excessive references in the current article. Second, I want to know your biased criteria to remove your judgment of "bad edits". If there is something to be fixed they should be done in the current article. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the "bad edits". The current article is just a dumping ground of trivia. A few examples is sufficient. Thus trimmed of all the excess (what I referred to as bad edits), one is left with an article that is more appropriately merged back to the parkour parent article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not WP:JUSTAVOTE. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since I do not see a good reason/argument to merge back to main article, I am suggesting to merge with timeline of parkour. It is possible to rewrite and add historical and popular events in chronological order. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a well-organized and well-referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete in popular culture the way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to prune them, not to split them out into new "articles" entirely comprised of cruft. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, per the current state of the article (much better than when it started). -- lucasbfr talk 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baconator[edit]

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

Lacks notability by itself and Wikipedia is not a menu. Very little info beyond the default composition. The only note worthy (and sourced) item is it being the official burger for the CFL. Wendy's Big Classic doesn't even have an article of its own, and it is arguably a more notable item, being a "core" Wendy's product. This would probably be better served by being in the main Wendy's article as part of their menu items. Indeed, it has been tagged for merge since August, but discussion in the Wendy's article closed with no consensus. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the above, and would like to add that for most of this article's history, it has existed merely as a repeatedly and often hit vandal target. It isn't useful, or notable, and it just wastes the times of other editors reverting vandalism. I say off with it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge off to Wendy's and redirect there. No need for it to have an article of its own; it's one of many menu items, and hasn't really got a legendary reputation like, say, a Big Mac. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above --Quadraxis (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wendy's - sourceable, but not needing its own article (yet). Alternatively, sourced information could be used to expand the article, such as the nutrition facts available from Wendy's, and I'm sure with a name like Baconator there's some public health lobby protesting it. Keep due to improvements and sources provided by Jeremy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on Give me until friday and I will get this looking better, since no one else would like to. As one of the few products that Wendy's has named, I believe that there is some further information that can be included that will prove the product should have an article of its own per WP:NOTE. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have found some stuff that confirms it as confirming to wp:note from the New York Times and USA Today. I also improved the structure of the article to conform with Wiki standards and have the same format as similar articles. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • that being said, Keep:
Reasons for keep:
  1. This item is a major product of a major global company.
  2. WP:NOT - this article is not a set of indiscriminate information, and does not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not.
  3. It is part of a major business plan for this company's corporate restructuring.
  4. It helps to show how a company responds to its competition by creating new lines of products.
  5. The sources include major industry magazines (Nation's Restaurant News), major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news, All multiple, independent sources
  6. No original research.
Additionally, it meets the four standards of notability as stated in WP:NOTE:
  1. There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
  2. The sources are reliable;
  3. The sources are secondary, or when primary they follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
  4. I generated none of the information, am not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep For reasons stated by Jeremy --DJBullfish (talk) 9:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because some people do not think this is "notable" does not mean it should be deleted. I agree it meets WP:NOTE standards. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Flannery[edit]

John J. Flannery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While undoubtedly worthy, this person does not appear to meet the notability criteria; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Prod and prod2 removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, WP:LOCAL refers to places of local interest, not local history; also it's an essay, not a guideline. I'd never seen it before -- thanks for pointing it out as I think it's very good. It's just not applicable here. --A. B. (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Google News archive turns up local news sports results for this person and someone (a son?) with the same name but I didn't find anything that I thought really addressed our Notability Guideline. Others may want to look at the search results and see if they agree with my interpretation. --21:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I'm not sure high school football coaches are notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure he was a wonderful person, but that by itself is insufficient to meet notability. Reliable sources to support notability are absent. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Coque[edit]

Imaginary Coque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • (1) I can't find the band, its members and its one released album on the net
  • (2) This article cites no sources
  • (3) Can't verify assertion that the band was (a) influential or (b) critically acclaimed
  • (4) this article is the only contribution by the author
  • (5) suspect the title is a play on the work "cock" and the article a hoax
  • (6) talk page shows evidence of hoax and possible vandalism

Absolute rubbish. Flagged as deleted. Conker87 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 30 October 2007 Conker87

This is a fake article, lecturer from an England College submitted this to 'prove' that Wikipedia was 'stupid' Conker87 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:15, 31 October 2007 Conker87

pope simon man is a gay (i made a wonderful and valid point even more valid by adding it now)

Revision as of 18:06, 1 November 2007 89.242.55.145
— Talk page history
Adimovk5 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to me this looks like a case of someone abusing the openness of Wikipedia to prove a point-----Adimovk5 (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no citations, does not meet WP:N. Appears to be a hoax. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and unsourced unless someone turns up some references. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any references, hoax.--Sandahl 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX. -Verdatum (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no resources available to verify this article.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Nice patrolling by Adimovk5. Xymmax (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good hoax! Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YRT2 Arena[edit]

YRT2 Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The arena has been completely erased from the plan books. It will not be built, thus it has no place on Wikipedia. Mikenucklesii (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Fox (series). (History preserved, so merging can be done later if needed.) WaltonOne 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arwing[edit]

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

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles (though a small section under List of characters in the Star Fox series#Star Fox team may be warranted), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know Wikipedia is not a game guide, but this is a fictional aircraft that is rather prominently shown and used in a popular video game series. If you wanted an analogue of Arwings and Star Fox, one would be the Death Egg and Tornado in the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not really a character (I think), so I would say no. But if you can trim it to two or less paragraphs (preferably using info from the intro and from #Appearances in other games) and merge it somewhere else, why not. But it's probably best to transwiki it and link there. http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Arwing has a pretty good basis where additional material can be added. – sgeureka t•c 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but it uses the GFDL like wikipedia does, which makes transwiki'ing easy, especially if you'd otherwise lose the article completely. – sgeureka t•c 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it stay on wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then the articles you may care about will need to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines, which can be pretty strict (because the goal is to write a good encyclopedia, not a fansite.) – sgeureka t•c 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter if they follow the rules if they'll be deleted indiscriminately by overly zealous users anyway. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen an article that follows all rules being deleted. And again, please be careful with your wording. Goodnight. – sgeureka t•c 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge No real references due to a total lack of notability. It can probably be summarized on the series' page, although I do not see how that can be the case due to the way Star Fox (series) is currently structured. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article entirely consisting of in-universe details with no sources establishing real-world notability. Seriously, dedicated wikis such as Wikia's are the best place for this sort of thing, not an encyclopedia. --Stormie (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is not notable, so it should be deleted. However, after deletion, it may be a good idea to recreate as a redirect to the video game. I (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom Will (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its just plot repetition without any notability, should not have been un redirected. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Star Fox (series) as a valid search term. The article's nothing more than the sum of its parts, repetition of individual games' plots and has demonstrated no notability beyond that. Someone another (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. krimpet✽ 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totient function/Proofs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. See Policy Ra2007 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Proofs of an important function are certainly worth keeping. -- Masterzora (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Transwikify to some other wiki project. Ra2007 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really think making a PDF of the article and linking to it should make everybody happy. This is not difficult. And BTW, what other wiki project did you have in mind? -Zahlentheorie (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a textbook. "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." I agree that it could be transferred to another wiki project. --SimpleParadox (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment  : These proofs do not "read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples." In fact, I can understand a deletion if they did, but they don't. -- Masterzora (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: The page addresses the reader directly using phrases like, "Next observe that" and "we get" and "as we saw earlier." Those are phrases used to teach a subject matter by building empathy with the reader. The leading questions may not be present on the page, but they are nonetheless being answered as if they were. As I said, the page is still worthy of being kept somewhere on wiki, just not on Wikipedia. Cheers. --SimpleParadox (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TONE, which is about not using the first person in articles, but which states: "we" may be used in mathematical contexts. See also We#Atypical uses of we for this use in mathematical proofs, which is absolutely standard usage also outside the teaching context – perhaps even more so. Take for example Andrew Wiles' celebrated proof (21MB!) of Fermat's Last Theorem. This is most definitely not teaching material, but it uses "we" all over the place. The very first example of a proof in our article on mathematical proofs also uses the word "we" in this way.  --Lambiam 09:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Proofs require some form of transitional phrases such as those. The fact that they also appear in textbooks doesn't mean anything at all. There is nothing about such phrases that is particularly textbookish. -- Masterzora (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I disagree. You should also consider the "original research" implications of this proof. Ra2007 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What OR implications? Are you stating that the proofs are all original research? Even if we assume that someone did prove these specifically for the article, I have seen most of them in class and, if I had spare time, I'm relatively certain I could source the proofs. Even if they couldn't be sourced, I'm of the position that the verifiability his high enough to offset the OR-ness, anyway. -- Masterzora (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Is it unreasonable to assume that uncited proofs are original research? If not OR, cite them. And then, if cited, the proof becomes a wholesale quote. Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they? If the proof is notable, describe it (after establishing notability with third party RS). Just my thoughts. As is, WP is not a publisher of original thought, manual, guidebook, or textbook. Guidebooks and how-to texts belong in Wikibooks, Recipes belong in Wikibooks. Ra2007 (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I think there are many cases to assume that uncited proofs are OR. Specifically, if it's something new or novel, it's probably OR. If it's older and nothing special, then I wouldn't say you're necessarily wrong to assume the author to have done the proof from scratch his or herself, but it's not bound to be original thought, nor something that they they just independently came up with. We can also cite it without quotes, easily enough. Find a source that uses the same method, cite that source with the current proof. Thus, it's not a direct quote, but it's still sourced. As for encyclopedias not having mathematical proofs: that argument doesn't make much sense to me. After all, encyclopedias don't have a lot things that Wikipedia does (and should) have. And, as I said before, I don't see how it fits into the category of "original thought, manual, guidebook, or textbook" material any more than something like absolute value or any of the other mathematical articles. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The behavior of the nominator, and "TableManners" and "SimpleParadox" is offensive. This is not good-faith participation in discussions. I do not contribute content to articles on how to do open heart surgery because I do not know anything about that. (I might fix a typo in such an article, or find the famous surgeon John Smith mentioned with no link to the article about him and add the link, etc., but I don't explain to the reader how to do surgery.) But those named here differ from me in that respect. Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, written in about 300 BC, is much celebrated, comprehensible to 15-year-olds, and very beautiful, and it would be strange to find an encyclopedia considering it unworthy of inclusion. Cantor's diagonal argument was a very unexpected advance, and considering it unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia would be profoundly weird. We have conventions on Wikipedia, long discussed by those knowledgeable in the subject concerning how to write and how to organize and how to title, articles on mathematical proofs. We have hundreds of articles devoted mainly to proofs. We have many thousands of articles containing mathematical proofs. People not familiar with those facts and who've never given them half a second's thought should not step in and lecture us condescendingly about these things as if we've never thought of them. Why was THIS particular "proofs" article chosen, rather than a policy discussion proposing deletion of ALL of them? People think I'm being rude by calling "illiterate" a person who thinks the only way to include a proof that has appeared in the literature is by copying it verbatim. That one could adapt such a proof to the level of the audience or background, while it remains the same proof, seems alien to this person. Could any fact be more obvious? To explain these things is to do remedial tutoring for weak undergraduates. They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see nothing in this proof that suggests problem-solution textbook-type material. It's a proof, not a lesson. Tparameter (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mathematics without proofs is nothing. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JRSpriggs. What exactly is the objection to this article? I haven't been able to figure that out by reading everything above. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is made into a PDF, then how will people edit it?? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should we tolerate people who write things like "Encyclopedias do not contain mathematical proofs, do they?" asking to be treated with the same respect that good-faith participants in discussions like this are entitled to? That's wrong. We should consider banning that user. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please cite a violation of Wikipedia policy by said user in support of banning him, or withdraw your statement. This article is about whether proofs of totient functions should be in Wikipedia. If a certain user uses fallacious logic, by all means criticize the logic. But please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Beetle B. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone wrote above: "And then, if cited, the proof becomes a wholesale quote." Why do illiterates who write idiotic crap like this feel entitled to be treated with the same respect that honest people should get? That's just wrong. It is sickening to see the people who hang around the AfD discussions always feeling their entitled to push people around, when those they're pushing around differ from them in that they have some professional expertise in the subject matter and those feeling so entitled are illiterate and dishonest. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ack, Michael, a user being misinformed or new to mathematics on wikipedia does not constitute a basis for banning said user. It is important not to bite new users in such a way. They are the lifeblood of the project. We all (well, most of us) made mistakes when we first arrived here; it would be a terrible thing if all of us were banned for out first error in judgment. —Cronholm144 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator seems to be confused about the difference between a textbook and any piece of text containing proofs. I can see how reading this article can be very challenging, especially for those without mathematical training. However, the decision to banish all proofs from Wikipedia would be a major policy decision and could only be made after a careful consideration at the highest level. At present, the policies do not explicitly preclude proofs, and de facto, there are many other articles of this type. Arcfrk (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "Wikipedia-is-NOT" argument does not apply here. This is not the kind of material you'd find in a manual, guidebook, or textbook. WikiProject Mathematics has created these articles named XXX/Proofs to keep the parent articles manageable and easier for people not interested in the proofs (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs); merging all these back into the adjunct articles will not improve Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 08:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator's reasoning fails to stand up to scrutiny. This article is not written like a textbook, and does not breach "NOT" Woody (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as "Totient function identities". These are notable enough to deserve a separate article, but such an article needs to be properly named and properly written, like any other article. Geometry guy 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete transwikify to Scholarpedia. Sorry folks, but other stuff (proofs) exist on Wikipedia is not a good enough argument. TableManners (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That "other stuff" that "exists", exists as a result of policies that have been discussed at length, calling for it to exist. "TableManners", your behavior is offensive. I do not add content on how to do open heart surgery because I know nothing about that subject. But you do. As seen above. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please try and stay civil. People are allowed to disagree with one another. Woody (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I find the behavior of the nominator and two of the discussants offensive. I've commented on this above and copied it onto their talk pages. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've mentioned it a number of times, but have not indicated what is offensive about their comments. Yes, you disagree with them, but what offended you? Again, if there is inappropriate behavior at hand here, please cite Wikipedia policies that they are violating.Beetle B. (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My comments above, beginning with the words "The behavior of the nominator", says what offended me. What specifically do you find insufficient in that paragraph? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of the time proofs are not necessary in encyclopedic articles (there are a few exceptions though). It is preferable to have proofs in a subpage than in the main page, but this is a "sweep under the rug" strategy long-term. Ideally the proofs should be transferred to Wikibooks or some other place, but either way, eventually dedicated proof subpages will have to go. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a general comment on AfD's concerning such articles. i would second Salix Alba's comment [here] that it should be decided on a case by case basis. (so i disagree with Oleg's comment above.) to come to a sensible conclusion, or to have a valid reason to start a AfD in the first place, some kinda mathematical competence is required. otherwise one is likely to start making painfully ridiculous statements and suffer the wrath of Michael Hardy, :-). the question is whether the proof is sufficiently non-trivial to justify a subpage. just blindly quoting bureaucratic guidelines is really a bad way to go about this business. Mct mht (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A case-by-case discussion is good indeed. My point is that one can't stay in the Article name/Proofs framework forever. Articles worthy of keeping should stand on their own as independent articles (with a proper name), as suggested by Geometry guy. Others should be deleted. And one should think think very carefully when spending a lot of effort in creating new proofs subpages. Their value can be rather marginal. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename per Geometry Guy. There's no edict barring proofs from Wikipedia. Some encyclopedias don't contain proofs. Some don't contain animated GIF images. "This article contains proofs" is not a reasonable deletion rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as improvable to encyclopedic quality. In a very quick scan of the mathematics featured articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics I did not notice any proofs. In other words, the articles like this one that are identified as 'proofs' aren't very good as articles, and the best articles usually don't contain proofs. I don't yet see this as blanket justification for deleting 'proof' articles. This one has room for improvement, so let it be improved. Decide in the future whether this is a dead end, and we can't improve articles like this one up to the standards of the best articles. I know that Cantor's diagonal argument is not yet featured, and it *does* contain sketches of proofs, and I think it's a good example of what can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with the case-by-case approach. Proofs are not inherently unencyclopedic, and there is great value in including them in Wikipedia: don't forget that Wikipedia is not paper and that Wikipedia's goal is to contain "the sum of all human knowledge" (subject to WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V, of course, but proof articles only tend to violate these if they are not notable or are badly written). Proofs can be included in encyclopedia articles. They can also be separate articles, but such separate articles must be notable and coherent in their own right. (I see no reason to make them a general exception to WP:N.)
The whole subpage experiment (now more than two years old) was an interesting experiment, but ultimately, these are articles, not subpages, and so must stand up as articles in their own right. Calling them subpages just leads to bad writing, in which the context and statement are not well explained. For example, this article uses the same notation for greatest common divisor as for ordered pair, but does not explain it. Other "/Proofs" articles are worse, whereas the "Proofs of X" articles are generally better, because they are more self-contained.
My test is whether a reasonable article could be written if it were not regarded as a subpage (for one more time, mainspace subpages do not exist!). In this case, I think a reasonable article on "Totient function identities" could be written, so I say "Rename". In the case of the AfD for Boy's surface/Proofs, I don't see the case for an independent article, and so that content should be transwikied and/or merged, and the article deleted. Geometry guy 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel only notable proofs should be kept in Wikipedia - not proofs of notable theorems. The proof of infinitude of primes is notable - it's often the first proof by contradiction many encounter. Cantor's proof is also notable (and again, may often be the first of its kind seen by students). Both of these may also have had a great deal of historical significance. The proofs provided in this article are in no way special. Yes, totient functions are important, which is why there is an article on them. The proofs of its various properties are just details. I agree that it should be transwikified - Wikibooks if there is a book on number theory being worked on there. Beetle B. (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the proof is incorrect. we need accurate proofs on wikipedia if at all.
  • Delete unless sources can be found for the notability of these proofs, and not just of the facts that they prove. I strongly disagree that proofs and proof articles have no place in Wikipedia; I think that proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π, for instance, is a fine article. But that article, in contrast to the present one, provides sources that attest to the notability of that specific proof, and has a name that makes it clear that it is an article about a proof rather than an appendix to some other article. Without such sources, I am having a difficult time justifying the continued existence of the totient proofs article. Little damage will be done to mathematics or Wikipedia by deleting the article; the facts in question will continue to have proofs that can be found in the number theory textbooks. It is plausible to suggest a merge, back to the totient function article, but the reason this sort of material was removed from the article in the first place remains valid: they clutter up the article making it difficult to read and even more difficult to find the important facts about totient functions among the unimportant details of exactly how to formulate the induction hypotheses etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michael Hardy per JRSpriggs. Proof of notable thing is good enough. Lack of substantial reason to delete exists as well. Tparameter (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, as voiced above, the presence of proofs does not make something "a manual, guidebook, or textbook." The conventions of a field must be respected, if we wish to write in an encyclopedic manner. --Starwed (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, you can't have math without proofs. This does not make it "a manual, guidebook, or textbook." Kevin143 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I withdraw my opinion. In the future, I will ask Michael Hardy before I submit an opinion, mostly because I do not like being bullied. TableManners (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I do not like being bullied is why I wrote what I did. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons in Seven Samurai 20XX[edit]

Weapons in Seven Samurai 20XX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the gameplay sections of the Seven Samurai 20XX game articles and is thus entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonOne 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Jones[edit]

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

Contested prod, prod reason is "Non-notable character. No source exists that would make the article more than a plot summary". Bringing here to stop a prod-war. Procedural, no opinion. UsaSatsui (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to the movie article, per Sam Blacketer. No need for a stand alone article that just regurgitates the plot. Fails WP:FICT. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source. See Bond girl. Most Bond girls have their own articles, and see the extensive list of characters at the bottom of the Christmas Jones article. Corvus cornixtalk 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there is no reason for this one. Other bond girls appear in novels so their origins are notable. Vikrant 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further the article Bond girl is notable since they make up an integral part of the film series. Even the external links provided on that article have hardly any coverage of Dr. Jones. Vikrant 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this does bring up the question: is being a Bond Girl inherently notable (in the way, say, being a member of a legislature confers automatic notability)? I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before -- probably in an AfD -- with some sort of consensus. Does anyone know where, and is able to point the rest of us to it? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some not-plot information that could be added: what did the actress think of the character and what did reviews of The World Is Not Enough say about the character. Bond films always get a lot of media attention, so sources should not be hard to find, eg [5], [6], [7]. A little bit here. Here's another article from the BBC about how the character was included in a lot of marketing to attract the young male demographic. Personally I think that all Bond girls are notable. Lots of articles are written about them (like the BBC article above), they are written about in books (eg [8]) and they are a huge part of culture. Bláthnaid 10:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Denise Richards, and not the character, was involved in marketing. The rest of the sources stated above are just the actress's words. Vikrant 14:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Denise Richards was cast in the role of Christmas Jones, so I think it is relevant. It is OK to use interviews as sources as long as the interviews are published in reliable sources. I have added real-world information and sources to the article. The character also appeared in a novel and video game, so IMO a merge with the film article is not appropriate. Here [9] [10] are some books about Bond girls that could be used as sources, and a TV documentary [11]. Bláthnaid 10:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the actress says about the character is more relevant to the film article than the character. There is practically nothing we can do in this case. Vikrant 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Source/Expand This character is obviously notable enough to have her own article (because once you delete it, someones just going to create it again), and is notable because she was a main Bond girl in a novel. It currently dosen't have anything but a plot summary but in time it will expand. And to "Vikrant", if you check other character pages you often see the actor/actresses opinions on it (eg. Jack Sparrow). It can be expanded, it just need time and an editors willingness.  The Windler talk  05:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character is notable enough to have a seperate article. The article just needs some expanding and general improvement - • The Giant Puffin • 10:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All lead female characters have pages about them so why can't this? All it needs is sourcing. Highfields (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - All Bond girls are highly notable. Tovojolo (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vultak[edit]

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

This article has no notability as established by reliable sourcing, is written in an in-universe way that is simply plot repetition assembled from the various episodes of She Ra, and is thus also wholly duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Keogh[edit]

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

This article is an unnecessary fork from List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps characters. By the time original research is removed, the article will add nothing to the the existing article. Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skull of Yoruk[edit]

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

Article is just an in-universe plot repetition culled from the gameplay and plot sections of the Zork games. It asserts no notability with reliable sourcing per WP:RS and as such is just duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spank tank[edit]

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

Though it is a real term, it seems to have little chance of being expanded (so to speak) beyond a definition of a slang term. Most of sources seem to be on soldiers' blogs. Jacksinterweb (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-delete - per nom.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki and delete. No potential for expansion beyond a definition. Powers T 19:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any time I see Urban Dictionary as the first return on a Google search, I get a bad feeling. This is one of those times. The articles I found aren't reliable sources at all, mostly passing uses with no definition. Without reliable sources, delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.Chasecarter (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- lucasbfr talk 12:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-IP[edit]

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

The article is an advertisement for a non-notable internet services company. No reliable sources have been identified, and no sources other than the company website are used to establish notability. I recommend deletion. In addition, the article was created twice NoIP and No-IP, I redirected one to the other. Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Appears barely notable. Powers T 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known internet company. Alexa.com statistics indicates some notability [12]. Julius Sahara (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is alexa.com a valid reliable source for internet company notability? I wouldn't think so, as it just tracks hits and links and advertising. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two external references that relate to the notability of the company, one is only a trivial mention. The remaining references are to either the company website or manufacturers websites for indication that their service is compatible with various internet equipment. Is there any news coverage of the company? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fairly well-known service, that much can be said without looking at references or Alexa rankings etc. In any case, I think the references are decent enough. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroplex Chapel[edit]

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

Lack of notability. After the first sentence, the article deals with minutia that only members of the church would need to know. Antonrojo 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The above is the original nominator's rationale from back in September, which somehow got blanked along the way. I restored it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. This obviously does not meet notability requirements and would never be found in an encyclopedia. Few, if any, local churches would. Aepoutre 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting, this discussion page somehow went listed on September 15, where it patiently waited for comments... Tizio 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - appears in no reliable sources, not even local news? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, reads like an ad. Powers T 19:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, fails WP:RS too. By the way, is this the longest that an AfD's ever been open? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G11 Pretty blatant advertising. Blueboy96 20:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor thing, languishing all that time with no attention. Delete as advertising. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article transformation. Coredesat 05:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goth Transformation[edit]

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

This term appears to be a neologism with no evidence of notability or currency; the article is rife with what appears to be original research. (Full disclosure: this article was tagged for speedy deletion (G1, patent nonsense), but I felt there were no speedy categories that are valid for this particular article, so I untagged it. That doesn't mean I think it's suitable for Wikipedia, however.) Powers T 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did a major cleanup to the article to bring it closer to WP Style, and in conclusion, yeah...this does come pretty close to patent nonsense. It is certainly a WP:NEO. I shouldn't even need to mention WP:AR WP:OR WP:N WP:V. -Verdatum (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Changed my mind. I consider this "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.", IOW, patent nonsense. -Verdatum (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must be unreasonable then. It makes perfect sense to me. Powers T 19:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the heck! Jack?! 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just barely escapes being a G1 ... but gahhhh, this is horribly written. Not only that, but no reliable sources whatsoever. Blueboy96 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to say the rewrite made the article better than it was ... but still, only 121 Yahoo hits and 234 Google hits. Not enough for an article yet. Blueboy96 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely. Apart from having no sources, I agree it's badly written and not the kind of article for Wikipedia. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt It like Ancient Carthage What in tarnation is this article?! It skirts the border of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Zidel333 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm. Yeah, cool. Delete - unsourced original research. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural diversism[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:V nothing on google, "Wikipedia is not for things made up by the local parson"? Anarchia (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research / non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of currency. Powers T 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, no sources. Jack?! 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. I got the same grand total of 0 Google hits. Blueboy96 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The site's author has tried to blank the discussion, and also tried to remove the AFD tag from the article. Good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ideas in this article are true and Joe Nelson is actually making a "temple" in Stafford, VA. Just because its not on google, it doesnt mean the article is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.6.1.56 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please provide some reliable, independent sources stating as much. Right now we have no way of knowing any of this is true beyond your say-so. Only slightly less importantly, we have no way of knowing whether the ideas in this article are notable; again, we need reliable independent sources to determine that. Find some, and the article may be kept. Powers T 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirtball[edit]

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

I at first didn't know what to make of this article, but it appears to be a hoax as the "real name" of the artist links to a US President. No assertion of notability and no citations from independent sources. will381796 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The link to Jimmy Carter was vandalism, FYI. It isn't a hoax, but WP:MUSIC is legitimately in question. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability; the artist's record label (Suburban Noize Records) is an indie label whose notability is itself in question (per tags on its article), and there's no discussion of charted hits or influence on other artists. Powers T 18:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable.... -RiverHockey (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jimmy Carter is a dirtball; let Wikipedia tell this to the whole world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.121.13 (talk)
Note The above comment left by IP 206.196.121.13 is in reference to the vandalism that (s)he did to The Dirtball twice. Thus I believe that their keep vote is invalid. will381796 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Koopa Clown Car[edit]

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

Copy and pasted from Mariowiki and fails WP:NOTE. This is pretty much a listing of the appearance of the Koopa Clown Car, for everything else is discussed in Bowser's article. FangzofBlood 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn trivia. JJL (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant information to Bowser (Nintendo). Article already exists at the Super Mario Wiki, so no transwiki necessary. Powers T 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The funny thing is that the information IS stated. FangzofBlood 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 notability established. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hosinshu[edit]

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

Second nomination; page was previously deleted. Non-notable newly created art (only 7 Ghits when excluding "Wikipedia"); wholly unsourced. Previous discussion here [13] (sorry, unsure of the format for a second nomination). JJL (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. JJL (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recently created art, no references, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housekeeping. I've restored the original deletion discussion and created this new page per convention. Powers T 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a repost if it is, otherwise as a non notable martial art made up one day. Nuttah (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 advert and user request. 1 != 2 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider Trio[edit]

Tomb Raider Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The notability of the websites is not declared and the article does not follow the writing styles of English Wikipedia. huji—TALK 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploits Valley Mall[edit]

Exploits Valley Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable shopping mall in Canada. A Google search turned up nothing of note. Claims to be the only mall in the region, but is unverified (it's been my experience that every other town in Canada seems to have an enclosed mall). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is a page with information on the shopping center. Newfoundland and Labrador is much more loosely populated than other regions of Canada and the only other shopping malls around the area is one in Gander, at least 100km away. It's owned by Econo-Malls. I don't think the article should be deleted. There's more information here.~NeonFire372~ (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Advertiser, Grand Falls-Windsor's local newspaper has definitely mentioned the mall countless times in print form. I don't see how a building such a shopping mall would need to be covered in the news that much anyway considering the extremely low crime rate in Central Newfoundland. The mall is notable however because it provides somewhere to shop for residents at least 100km away, and even almost 200km away as you head out on the coast where there are outport communities with nothing but a grocery store. The mall is mentioned here - that proves it's existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Drawing Area (of 100km/200km away) can find a verifyable source stating that fact, then that would make the mall notable as that Draw Area would put it on par with Super Regionals. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedic article. Not even if you're the only mall within 100km. Encyclopedias are tertiary-sources that require independent secondary sources to establish notability. Epthorn (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In its present state, the article might be logical candidate for a merge. However, the fact that the character has appeared in several contexts makes this tricky, and there is no consensus for any specific merge.--Kubigula (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madam Mim[edit]

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

This character is a non-notable character from the Disney movie Sword in the Stone, and has no notability apart from the movie. It has no references from reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe plot repetition take from the plot sections of the movie and TV show. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability, and unreferenced anyway. mattbuck (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a major Disney character, at least in Europe; in any case, is in no way limited only to the movie. --Kizor (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give examples of how she's not limited to the movie? Or do you mean, she's also in the original book? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. She's a recurring character in the Disney comics, retooled into a contemporary setting as a sort of anti-hero; reclusive and quite morbid, but not an actual antagonist. I gather said comics are not very popular in the US? Well, they're huge in Europe - in my native Finland, well over 95% of children aged 7-14 read them. (Yes, I'm serious. In fact that's a deliberate underestimation as I can't recall the exact figure.) It would be a fair estimate that at least 90% of the population would recognize the character. This is a couple orders of magnitude removed from being a bit player in one Disney movie. --Kizor (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I never knew that. I hope that this great notability in Europe will make it easy to demonstrate notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The C.O.A Inducks features a chronological listing of her appearances. Currently 933 stories and/or covers included. Dimadick (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As do I... --Kizor (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very notable and enduring comic book character. Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Stubbify&Keep or) merge, but don't delete I needed an image to know who the article is talking about, but I do recognize her from several stories. Is there are list for minor Disney characters? The first one or two paragraphs may be unsourced and may seem ORish, but they are real-world information that should be kept somewhere. – sgeureka t•c 12:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, now would be a great time to show it, as I am skeptical that there is any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have outgrown my Disney phase some time ago, so I don't remember any details about her character. My google search brought up some reviews for the film,[14] information about what a good job the voice actress did etc.,[15] and confirmation that Madam Mim was a main character in The Sword of the Stone and made many minor appearances in other Disney-related things. [16][17] I couldn't find a wikilist for minor Disney characters, so I think The Sword in the Stone (film) would be a good smerge target. I still believe that some sentences of the first two and the last paragraph deserve a mention somewhere. – sgeureka t•c 11:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this back to The Sword in the Stone. There's enough info here that could justify a mention in the article if sourced, notably the character being written out of later versions of the work and the animation facets. Also, it keeps the title as a redirect for a useful search term. redirects are free! Hiding T 10:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kizor. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kizor and Sgeureka. --SimpleParadox 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The opening sentence, “This character is a non-notable character from the Disney movie Sword in the Stone, and has no notability apart from the movie,” is ignorant and incorrect, which shows the complexity of the issue and the need for the article. The character is from the original version of the book, and was deleted in the later version, which is more widely read. She then received greater notoriety from a notable movie, and has subsequently achieved even greater notability in other forms. It’s also unclear which article she would be merged into; my main interest is in the book, but it sounds like some of the proposers are only interested in (or at least aware of) the movie. This shows, I feel, a broader problem with this process of boiler-plate removal proposals by those with an insufficient grasp of the subject matter.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an exam for the people who nominated the article, it is an opportunity to demonstrate the articles notability, and if there is no notability to demonstrate, no amount of keep votes or insulting messages will change that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major character, with possibility to find reliable sources. Remember that she has different names in different languages: it looks to me like e.g. this book in Italian (check for Maga Magò)[18] has comments about the character (if my Italian is any good, it is about the depiction of the Middle Ages in Disney productions), which could be included in the article as a secondary source establishing some notability (I will not include this though, since my Italian is not good enough to be certain of the translation). Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. (I know it's usually poor form for a user with a clear bias in the matter to close an AfD, but I don't think anybody will dispute it in this case.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somari[edit]

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

I understand what the game is. It's a Genesis game working on Nintendo, so it's basically the original Sonic the Hedgehog on NES, but the hacker replaced Sonic with Mario Just because a hack is "impressive" does not make it notable and does not warrant an article. I've gotten several more impressive hacks and pirates deleted using AFD in the past, and just because a hack or pirate is "good" does not bear any meaning on if it deserves an article or not. I don't care how many years of work went through to make it, I don't care what kind of special software was used to put it all together, all I care about if it is notable or not and fits into Wikipedia guidelines. If the hack has any effect on an official video game company or their official games, been commented on by Nintendo or Sega or any other notable video game companies, been talked about on a notable magazine, website (just not a brief mention page like with Mobygames, since websites like that have places where anyone can contribute information to) etc.. As an example, look at this: [19]and you'll see why I didn't remove that ROM hack mention.

Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?

This page has resulted in deletion before. [20] Newspaper98 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note; This is actually #4, the first VfD apparently took place on 25 June 2004.[21] SkierRMH (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Yes, and we undeleted it because these grounds are entirely spurious, which I have already explained to you on your talk page. This debate will soon be closed because the deletion on these grounds has been overturned before (which is what the third AfD was -- overturning the second deletion) and you have not introduced anything new at all this time around. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Wikipedian suggested that we should have the debate because the article still lacks sources. Fine. In any case, my vote is still "strong keep", in part because the nominator doesn't seem to display any understanding of what the game in question actually is. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper98, what would you consider a notable ROM hack? - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be possible to find sources. One is [22], where it was named game of the week by a sub-site of gamespy. I found that through a couple of seconds of google searching. — PyTom (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is almost entirely primary sourced description or OR. No sources listed or found by me contain any actual information about the title (who made it, how, why, and so forth) just bemused speculation of their own, with no apparent fact checking to support it. Its only claim to notability would be if the emulator-era interest in the ROM was itself strong enough to be notable, but that would require a very different article, which also doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's edit history suggests an extreme bias towards hacks and fan translations in general; not a legitmate cause for deletion.--Claude (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit history has nothing to do with what consensus should be reached. My reason is straight forward and you haven't even said why you don't believe it's legitimate. And no, I'm not bias if I'm letting this stay in: [23], and the fact that I'm willing to negotiate. Newspaper98 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Scrooge McDuck --ZsinjTalk 03:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money Bin[edit]

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

I love Ducktales, but there is no justification for an article on the Money Bin if there is no notability established through reliable sourcing, and as such its just plot repetition of plot points from the Ducktales episode articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Scrooge McDuck - no true notability, and it talks about scrooge storing his money in the 6th dimension... The parts of this article which are actually coherent can be merged into Scrooge. mattbuck (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is this LEGO model of the money bin .... but merge and redirect (a useful portion) as above. This is a plausible search term and seems to be frequently mentioned in articles on McDuck. --Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There are no citations in this article, merging this original research would sacrifice the work done to cleanup the Scrooge page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Keep or Merge with some trimming to Scrooge McDuck and possibly to Duckburg. Unlike Calisota, this is far less debatable: It's definitely a major landmark in Duckburg and a very central plot device in many many many comics, several from Barks alone and dozens and dozens if you count all artists of same caliber. And probably easier to find external references for, too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is some useful info in the article. The Money Bin was created by Carl Barks, that's sourcable to Carl Barks: Conversations by Carl Barks, Donald Ault, 2003 Univ. Press of Mississippi ISBN 1578065011. Beyond that the rest of the opening paragraph is sourcable to primary source and of use to inform readers. The rest of it I would think is not within our scope. Hiding T 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple references are in Ault books and the Barks Library amoong other places. 203.220.107.102 (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep. There's some good information here. With better sourcing, this can be a decent article. --Ultra Megatron (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Miller (Kickboxer)[edit]

Joe Miller (Kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references. Does not meet WP:N or WP:Bio as there is no notability established through reliable sourcing, and might have a WP:COI problem. Could be a hoax. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless sourcing is provided. Google brings up too many hits with "Joe Miller" +kickboxing to be sure that we're talking about the same person.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search on 'memorable' Hong Kong fight brings up zilch.Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtiest Sketch Contest[edit]

Dirtiest Sketch Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page has been orphaned for 18 months, has no true notability, and is missing vast amounts of information. Last useful edit was over 12 months ago. mattbuck (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable; obviously written by an insider, but nobody else is likely to care. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anybody could prove to me that this article could even come close to being improved, I might consider keeping it. It has the fatal flaw of having everything wrong with it 1) Poorly Written 2) Un-Referenced 3) Mostly empty 4) Non-notable 5) Looks like it was written by an insider. I could look up who wrote this and if it's their only contribution then I'll have a good idea. TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oneupweb[edit]

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

This was proded for lack of notability. There are some real claims to notability here. I thought it prudent to bring here for further dicussion. I am officially neutral on this one. Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I'm not seeing the claims of notability. Could you enlighten us as to what you're seeing? Thanks! --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The article has reference to reliable sources (wired magazine) as well as a list of Awards, which may or may not in themselves be notable. These may not be enough for notability, but they at least are enough to ask for more comment. I may vote either way myself, but I need to see what others think before deciding. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless claims of WP:Notability can be improved. Is not listed in the 2007 winners on the Addy Award website[24], links on Michigan 50 website are not working, Wired magazine article is a passing mention. Can't find evidence showing that the ClickZ award is notable -- everything I'm seeing is a press release.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the issues mentioned above. The actual Addy page is http://www.aafd6.org/addys/D6Addy_2007.asp. I could send people here, but I thought it would be more useful to send them to the top level.

For the Michigan 50, it is a cookie issue. I could not get the page to work when I went back to it. The site has instructions for fixing this.

  • 1. Check the cookie settings in your browser
  • 2. Look for a cookie called "companiestowatch.org"
  • 3. Delete the cookie
  • 4. Click the web link again

Monitorfuse (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse[reply]

So for the Addy Award, this was a local chapter's award, rather than a national award?--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The award is for District 6. Should I put that in the copy?

Monitorfuse (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse[reply]

Thanks to all of you that took the time to respond. I understand the concerns that you have outlined, and hope that I have addressed them. If there is anything else that I can do, please let me know.

Monitorfuse (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse[reply]

Sorry for being a pest, but I was hoping to hear from someone on anything I could do for this entry. Is the discussion closed?

Monitorfuse (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)monitorfuse[reply]

The discussion will remain open for approximately 1 week, or until an administrator has determined that enough users have commented to reach a consensus on how to handle it. Several editors have noted shortcomings in their requests to delete the article. Perhaps you could fix those problems, or contact those editors directly for more explanation of their concerns? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron32. I tried to address their concerns and added additional resources. I will contact them directly.

Monitorfuse (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Monitorfuse[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tag for cleanup, verify. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gustafson[edit]

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

The subject of this article, Gerald Gustafson, won the Air Force Cross. However, a Google search of "Gerald Gustafson" and "Air Force Cross"[25] does not return any third-party sources (only Wikipedia mirrors), which means this page is not verifiable. The lack of websites would also seem to be an indicator of a lack of notability. The author of the page claims to be Gustafson's grandson, which is where the information comes from. Therefore, I feel it should be deleted.

This article was previously speedily deleted per WP:A7, but is currently undergoing a deletion review. Another user has jumped ahead of the DRV result, and has recreated the article, so I've decided to just nominate it for deletion to hopefully settle this debate. Tom (talk - email) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The debate at the DRV was running at 8 editors wanting to overturn your deletion, one editor wanting to endorse it (you) and one other who would keep it if it was given more sources. The article now has two independent sources. By the way, it is usually thought polite to inform an editor when you seek to delete an article he started. Nick mallory (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Air force cross winners are almost certain to be notable, and the lack of coverage on the internet is not a good indication of lack of notability or verifiability given that he won the award in 1967 - it's to be expected that someone like this will be better coverd in offline sources. Having said that, I'd be happier if someone could find a reference or two to a reliable source. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An honorable award, yes, but is it automatically notable? Should every person who has won the Air Force Cross have an article? Medals are subjective awards, and if no third parties have discussed him on the internet yet, then that is certainly a very strong indicator of whether someone has secured a place in the history books. --Tom (talk - email) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what the wikipedia policy says. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Are you claiming the second highest award for gallantry in the USAF isn't a significant award? Perhaps you are, in the DRV you wrote "There isn't any mention of why he is notable, just that he won the Air Force Cross. Why is this important?" Nick mallory (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd love it if every person who has won an Air Force Cross had an article - wouldn't it be great to have comprehensive coverage of a group of people with such fascinating stories to tell? Whether it's practical given notability and verifiability guidelines I don't know, but I would think so - and certainly hope so. There'll have been plenty of coverage at the time - and notability is not temporary. Nor is it determined by what's already been written on the internet. There are still big holes in the internet's coverage of many areas, one of which is minor historical figures. With the exception of contemporary journalism, the vast majority of serious, high quality, professional writing is still either offline, or else hidden behind paywalls and thus invisible to Google, so unless we want an encyclopedia devoted mainly to Star Wars, World of Warcraft and news stories from the last ten years, we shouldn't be relying on Google as our main arbiter of notability. And Wikipedia is at it's best when it covers subjects which aren't well covered elsewhere on the internet; if I want to know about The Simpsons, Wikipedia is entirely redundant to this site, but if I want to know about the Brown Dog affair, it may well be the best free source of information available. In any event, it's not true to say that there's no third party information about him at all on the internet, here is confirmation of the citation of his award, so that part of the article at least is verifiable. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not argue the fact that the internet (including Wikipedia and Google) has a bias towards recent events. However, the argument that we "could" find a wealth of published information about someone isn't a reason to keep an article that otherwise seems obscure. --Tom (talk - email) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MOH recipients have been deleted on the same basis. Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Seriously? Medal of Honor winners have been deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an article on an individual not a directory. There is no policy which says 'Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners' either and it's perhaps not sporting to imply that there is with a blue link set up to misrepresent its contents (WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners). The directory policy Dhartung links to doesn't mention medal winners at all, it says there shouldn't be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries", a "Sales catalog" or a repository for "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" - none of those things have any relevance to this article or indeed any article about the winner of a major millitary medal. Nick mallory (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won the Air Force Cross, the second highest award for gallantry in the U.S. Air Force. I find it literally incredible that anyone should think winners of this award are not notable. Wikipedia guidelines on notability clearly state that people who've been given major awards are notable. Tom's argument that medal awards of this kind are 'subjective' is ludicrous, is he suggesting that some winners of the Victoria Cross or George Cross didn't deserve them either? The idea that because something which happened 40 years ago doesn't have many google hits it should be disregarded is also facile as Iain points out. Failing to find someone on google and using that as proof that he's not mentioned in any history books makes no sense either. The citation is given in full in the article in any case. He complains both when someone possibly related to Gustafson writes an article, and also when someone not in anyway related to him (e.g. me) "jumps in' and writes one too. I find this nomination bizarre in both its reasoning and intent. What is 'obscure' about someone who won a major medal in the Vietnam War? Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Medals are subjective, since an act of heroism to one person may be seen as exactly the opposite to another, depending on their frame of reference. To suggest otherwise is incorrect (however, I never said he didn't deserve the medal, so please do not put words in my mouth). A person is defined by their actions, not a piece of metal with ribbon. So, do his actions of "not leaving a man behind" (if I interpreted things correctly) warrant his own article, or is it because he has a medal? Additionally, the original author has explicitly stated that he is his grandson, which I have no reason to doubt. If anything, this gives more cause to delete the article since there is a bias.
      Also, please try to keep your comments together and limit dissecting each point made above, as it disrupts continuity. --Tom (talk - email) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Medals are subjective? That's an absurd statement. They're awarded by a state in recognition of heroism or other service and this is a very high ranking medal. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to second guess if the act or acts which merited them seem worthy to you. The very fact that he received a medal of this rank automatically makes the recipient notable by Wikipedia standards as has been pointed out to you. If you check the history of this article you'll see that I started it this time around, rather than the man's grandson, but this is a red herring too, there's no bias involved in making simple statements of fact. Yes a person is defined by their actions, but it's those actions which, in this case, won the medal. I have to say I find this a ridiculous discussion. Nick mallory (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like you did here? I'll discuss this article how I choose, thanks. It would help you answered the substantive points made against this deletion request, rather than criticise the form in which they appear. Your nomination says the article should be deleted because it isn't sourced. It now is sourced, from two independent sources. In addition you admit that the article in its current incarnation wasn't started by anyone related to Gustafson, so as your grounds for deletion have been shown to be false. Instead of admitting that your proposal is groundless you are now attempting to argue that somehow medal winners have to pass some nebulous test which only you are proposing, although you offer no clue to what the parameters of that test might be. Whatever this ad hoc test might be you admit that he passes it "I never said he didn't deserve the medal" so why are you still arguing about this man's inclusion? Nick mallory (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before I answer, please do not split up other people's comments (as you did to mine above, which I am recombining) as a matter of courtesy. In addition, the reason I asked you to keep your comments together is that it is difficult for me to reply to your claims if they are scattered. I am also going to ask you politely to calm down and refrain from calling my arguments absurd. I merely disagree with you, and I have not attacked your ideas in any way. Please offer the same level of respect to me that I am affording to you, and understand that we all have different points of view.
          Now that that is out of the way, let me answer your questions. Medals are subjective because someone has to decide whether or not an act was heroic or meets the qualifications for the medal. The Air Force Cross is not a marksmanship medal, for example, where there is a specific number of targets that have to be hit for the citation to be made. Instead, it is a qualitative assessment made by a commanding officer (or other executive/committee, depending on the medal). Others may not construe the act as heroic, or may argue that the medal was awarded more for political reasons rather than practical (for example). I am not saying that is the case here necessarily, rather I am simply pointing out the fact that a medal does not automatically mean someone should have an article. Their accomplishments should be defined by their achievements, not by their medal, which I have stated above.
          Also, understand that this AFD is not because I have a personal vendetta against this man (or you, or his grandson, or anyone else), but because I question whether or not he should be part of this particular encyclopedia. Also, do not confuse my respect for his award (which I do respect) with whether or not I feel he should have an article or not. A lot of people have performed heroic acts which will never be on Wikipedia. Why? Because at some point, whether we like it or not, a line has to be drawn.
          However, even though I am not convinced there should be an article, I will still be happy if the opening of this AFD resulted in a workable, well-cited article, as well as some healthy discussion concerning who should have an article or not. Let us keep that in mind. --Tom (talk - email) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I apologize for not informing you directly of the AFD. I was under the impression that you were creating the article because you saw it on the DRV (where I gave notice). Bad timing, but assume good faith in that it was an unintended slight. --Tom (talk - email) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the one who submitted the article. Here is my source. Hope this helps...
    http://www.homeofheros.com/valor/0_AFC/afcross_detail_chron.html
    http://www.vietnamunitmemorialdisplay.org/new_page_9.htm
    I believe these are sites for people to check for phonies. Hope these helps. Sdsbassist (talk)Sdsbassist
  • Keep. The Air Force Cross is probably notable enough, and www.homeofheros.com is cited in a lot of the MOH articles I've edited. I'm having trouble following Tom's reasoning. How are medals subjective? He was either awarded the cross or he wasn't. Whether someone actually deserved a medal is an entirely different issue, and certainly beyond the scope of an Afd. I also see no COI issues. The article just presents the facts. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. There's a Category:Recipients of US Air Force Cross, so evidently the award confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories are not indicators of notability, but rather descriptive taxonomies. Because Category:United States Army soldiers exists doesn't mean every soldier should have an article, nor should all of the Category:American physicians, for example. --Tom (talk - email) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the MOH is 100% notable and the cross is just one step down from it, so I'm inclined to say that it is as well. Anything less prestigious would cross the line IMO, but this is a marginal keep to me, especially now that it is sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is well established that a lack of google hits does not imply a lack of notability, nor does it imply a lack of verifiability. DuncanHill (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history recommends that only the highest award in a country's system of decorations confers "automatic" notability (i.e. MoH, VC/GC etc). I will add this AFD to the project talk page to get some more input. David Underdown (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiprojects don't set policy though. Wikipedia's notability rules for individuals say that people who've won "significant recognized awards or honors" are generally held to be automatically notable. I fail to see how the Air Force Cross, or similar, isn't such an award. Nick mallory (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No but what they are saying is that only the top-level awards count as being sufficiently highly recognized for the purpose of that part of the notability guideline (NB in itself WP:NOTABILITY is only a guideline, not a policy). David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes no assertion of notability beyond the award, which does not appear to bear inherent notability.ALR (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are less than 200 total recipients of this award. Considering how many airmen served in the Vietnam War (including close to 30,000 combat pilots) that only 179 (180, one upgraded) received this award would appear notable enough. —PētersV (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per ALR. I worry how many more 'notable persons' we would have if we included the second highest awards for various things in each branch of each country. Especially as then you'd have to work out what was the second highest at the time of the award and such. A respectable award, and the award itself is notable, but I don't think in this case the person is. Narson (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Even more notable is that he is one of the few living winners. This can be important for Veterans Group's and Educational Organizations that need to verify Gustafson's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they need to verify it, they should likely contact the US DoD rather than use a website anyone can edit. Wikipedia is a quick stop for information, not a tool anyone should use to do their job. Narson (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by the ordinary meaning of the word "notable" this man's achievements are surely notable. LeContexte (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Expand heavily. If this is kept, I hope it is, it should be given an infobox, and extremely expanded. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the inference being that it's not up to standard at the moment?
      There has now been nearly a week to correct the issues with notability being cited, and no effort has been made to do that.
      ALR (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly, delete for a lack of the sources needed to ever expand the article past this sub-stub listing. Winning a prestigious medal is certainly a claim of notability but that alone is not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. I will reconsider if anything can be found that would reliably expand the page past the mere copying of his citation. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 found another website link yesterday..... http://www.legionofvalor.com/citation_print.php?uid=1001365072

Can you help me add this to improve standards? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Coredesat 05:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mahmoud EL Kholy[edit]

Ahmed Mahmoud EL Kholy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by writer of the article. Non notable poet whose only references are to vanity publisher International Library of Poetry/poetry.com. Most Google hits describe this outfit as a “scam” and a “rip-off” at worst and a vanity publisher at best. (See Wikipedia’s entry on poetry.com.) Also suspect conflict of interest; based on user name, Mr. Al Kholy has written this page himself. Dawn bard (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- per nom.--Phoenix741(Talk Page) 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question The writer of the article keeps deleting the the AfD notice from the page. Can the article be protected, or is that not an appropriate reason for protection? Thanks --Dawn bard (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since it's only the author removing it. If he keeps it up, though, he'll be blocked. Blueboy96 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he did it again. From an anon IP, but still--quack, quack. It seems to me that good faith can no longer be assumed. Blueboy96 14:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, notability via significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is not established. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Tran[edit]

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

Contested PROD – PROD notice was removed without explanation by anonymous user. Previous “refimprove” and “notability” tags were removed quickly without explanation, too – possible COI / self-promotion? Not notable; notability barely even asserted in article. The sources only mention Ms. Tran in passing, and none of them confirm any of her personal or academic information, and the companies that she works for/has worked for don’t seem to meet WP:CORP. Dawn bard (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. The anon that did most of the work on this article also made generous contributions to Tran Bich San (Catherine's father) and Rosie Tran, her sister, both of whom do pass the test of notability. But Catherine clearly does not. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? There is no explanation why this person is considerable not notable?
  • There is an explanation above, but the onus is actually on the author and editors of the article to establish notability, which hasn't been done here. There are no independent secondary sources - the references are just a series of articles based on press releases, and even still, Ms. Tran is only mentioned in passing. Please have a look at WP:BIO and WP:CORP if you have any more questions about what counts as "notable" on Wikipedia, or feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page. Thanks. --Dawn bard (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person is a very notable and important person in the Los Angeles fashion scene. Just because user Blanchardb is not familiar with the L.A. fashion scene, doesn't mean that Ms. Tran is not notable. -timed 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC) --76.213.247.147 (talk)
  • KeepAdditional comment. The articles verify notability and significance for the companies Ms. Tran has worked for and their importance in the fashion industry. They don't mention her just "in passing". In fact, serveral of the articles reference her as a company CEO and clothing designer. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
    • Then how come the article asserts none of this? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAdditional comment. Further research is currently being done to expand the article. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
  • KeepAdditional comment. The "refimprove" and "notability" tags were removed after the article had several references added. --76.213.247.147 (talk)
  • Delete as non notable and failing WP:BIO. We need coverage in reliable sources, the article has press releases which mainly list Tran as a contact. Nuttah (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/Redirect into Due South, but due to the contradictory information this may prove to be challenging. Redirected for now, and will userify the previous contents on request to help with the merge. — Coren (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diefenbaker (wolf)[edit]

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

This article has no references to establish its notability per WP:FICTION and also lacks sources per WP:RS. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the television series Due South and is duplicative of them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - into what I don't know, but the article is a stub and lacking in sources. Could maybe be redone when there is sufficient information to warrant a new article. mattbuck (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due South has enough info about who played Diefenbaker, and really, how much more is there to say? (However, the two articles disagree, so it would be nice to have that checked.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Due South 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as above - doesn't warrant a standalone article. PKT (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect/Delete doesn't seem to establish out-of-universe notability. Cheers, CP 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added to this page to try and address some of the problems mentioned. Please reconsider your opinions. GalaxyHound (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* I second the objection to removal; he’s a major character in a major series, with points of interest (and complexity, e.g., the composition of his ancestry) separate from the series as a whole. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) “is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.”
In particular, “it is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the television series Due South and is duplicative of them” sounds to me like boiler-plate and would need to be sourced before consensus is achieved. My contributions, which I did source, clearly belonged in this article rather than the series article.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Notability, in at least a limited form, has been established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Due South - Although secondary sources are provided, most are self-published and do not meet WP:RS (except for one book source for which no ISBN is provided). Per WP:FICT et al., there is no need for a separate article on an individual character unless said character has been the subject of extensive discussion in secondary sources and/or has had a major impact on popular culture. WaltonOne 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added the ISBN, though it hardly seems crucial for a book from a major university press.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry black man syndrome[edit]

Angry black man syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable duplicate of Black rage (law), we do not need 2 articles on this one marginally notable topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is clear that the article should be given more time to have reliable secondary sources added. Will have to be renominated if sources are not added within a reasonable time period. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeomanry (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

Fictional location from a RPG game. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:FICT on account of having no reliable secondary sources. Tagged as non-notable, but no improvement forthcoming. Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a fictional location from an RPG is not grounds for deletion. Reliable secondary sources can and should be added. Tagging as non-notable might well be appropriate, but there is no deadline for improvement of articles, and AfD isn't supposed to be used as a tool to force article improvement. Rray (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rray.--Robbstrd (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rray. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rray. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rray. Gavin, I don't think these AFDs are being made in good faith. You say that you added a notability tag to this article but that no improvements are forthcoming. But you've only given editors a couple of months from the original posting of the template. Not everyone spends as much time on Wikipedia as you do, so you're not giving interested parties enough time to fix entries before you delete them. Further, you are tagging and deleting so many articles so often that it's almost impossible to keep up with you. Why not take a little time off of this crusade and give people some time to make improvements? The pace of your templating and requests for deletion is exaspirating, and it's really taking a lot of the fun and love people have dedicated to Wikipedia out of it. If your plan is to wear down RPG page editors from participating in Wikipedia, congratulations. It's working. I don't deny that several of these pages should be merged or deleted, but you're posting on all of them, often about subjects you know nothing about, and expecting everyone to keep up with your pace. That's unfair, and it's really disappointing. I know that you think these efforts are improving Wikipedia, but in fact you're really limiting the utility and fun of Wikipedia for thousands of readers, all by youself. I really wish you would just give this crusade a rest for a few months so people can address your templates, fix the articles that need fixing, or clean them up themselves. You are upsetting a lot of people and not giving those who care to improve these articles anything close to a fair chance to do so. I wish you'd give it a rest. Iquander (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to change my vote to Keep per Iquander. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not clear why it's not notable. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; the rationale for nomination was not satisfactorily addressed. east.718 at 22:35, December 19, 2007

List of locations in the Star Fox series[edit]

List of locations in the Star Fox series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list of locations that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is unnecessary to cover them in detail, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Unless notability can be established by multiple sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but on a couple conditions Strong keep, now that the article's been expanded upon - It's notable as being about scenes of fictional planets. HOWEVER, if that is not a viable option, merge the levels of each respective game into those game articles (such as StarFox 64's levels would then go to #Levels or #Locations). If given the chance to be expanded upon (as it's relatively brief), it could have a better purpose. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing. I have read your page over and over. You avoid having to answer any questions asked to you regarding why it is deleted, or what you consider notable. What are your standards for notability? (wading through several large articles to find a few small points isn't a pasttime for me...) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly transwiki if someone wants it. No secondary information present to establish notability per WP:FICT. Furthermore major violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. It's hard to think of real-world information about locations in video games like this, so wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. – sgeureka t•c 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The question here is whether these locations are important to the encyclopaedic discussion of the topic, or whether they would be better suited to a game guide. These games are shooters, and therefore I do not think locations are important. Perhaps the only game genre that would warrant a list of locations is the adventure game - a list of islands in Riven, for example. In those games, the locations are the game, in the same way as character lists are important for story-focused games like RPGs. In a shooter without a story, I see little need for a list like this, therefore warrants deletion per WP:GAMECRUFT. User:Krator (t c) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-transwiki-lete no apparent real-world context, criticism, or analysis, and unlikely that there ever could be such information without WP:OR, due to the rather limited scope of the subject matter <eleland/talkedits> 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question If i (or another wikipedia contributor) were to considerably expand on the details of each level/location/planet, would that satisfy the notability requirements of the page? As an alternate, would that then make it more suited to being on each respective game's page as a section/sub section? allow me to also state that i DO understand it needs to be brought out of an in-universe tone (wikified and made more encyclopedic), and i certainly know and understand that wikipedia is not a game guide. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained here and on your talk page, you need real world information to establish notability. They are game guide material (any way that you word them), so they would be removed from any articles. TTN (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that pertains to the series, not these. If you have a reliable source for it, do add it to the series page. TTN (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated vote to speedy keep reason: user is nominating massive amounts of video game articles in bad faith, using sock puppets, bots, harassing others on his talk page when they confront him on this... do i really need to go on? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what did you say about another user? Do you have any proof of the accusations you are making, or are you just talking out of pure ignorance? I strongly caution you from accusing people of things that you cannot prove. Besides, there is no evidence of bad faith nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established in the primary article. Longstanding consensus holds that lists like this should be split out if they make the main article too long. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room for a logical arrangement of subject material rather than cramming it all into one page. Nomination seems a clear WP:POINT violation... nom is on the verge of being admonished by ArbCom about excessive/questionable 'merge' actions, so now is putting everything on AfD instead. --CBD 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with CBDunkerson, hopefully the arbcom will note these POINT violations. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The locations themselves need to be focus of non-trivial coverage in order to establish notability, things like development info or reliable secondary parties discussing them. Someone another (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above: gamecruft. Btw, User:RingtailedFox can you please reduce the visual pollution of your signature? Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The signature won't be changed, and that's not relevant to the discussion anyway. Denied. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleaned-up your sigs on this page. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikia. SharkD (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per RingtailedFox, CBD. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CBD. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this "list" is actually a transcription of a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Star Fox franchise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and improve, consensus is that he is notable enough and that sources can/will be found. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Ehrlich[edit]

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

Unrefferenced, no claim of notability, virtually no content, complete orphan. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has had plenty of time to acquire some reliable sources and citations thereof. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We need to be careful with subjects from the pre-internet era and while Ehrlich doesn't seem to have ever been translated into English, his works are cited particularly in the area of the history of philosophy. I'm looking for usable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a legacy article of the problematic wikipedian User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg (now banned), who in his obsession with names created thousands of stubby pages of people and locations that happened to have a name he liked. Talking from experience, these things were never hoaxes and had a minimum of notability, but they were often so low in quality that a deletion couldn't be much worse. My prod as part of WP:SU was overturned, but I have no attachment to this page in one way or another. – sgeureka t•c 20:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'the authors of multiple academic books are notable, regardless of who created them, and i don't see why whether or not they are in English has much to do with it. In most of the period when this man was writing, English was not the principal language in his subject. His 1965 book is found in 62 worldCat libraries (predominantly english speaking countries--including 45 US & Canadian libraries). For a 1965 German textbook in philosophy, this implies considerable academic recognition. DGG (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For a non-English work to be a reliable source for the English wikipedia, we need reliable translations of those works. This leaves us back where we started: no reliable sources = no notability. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No, not in the least. Translating a non controversial source for a non-controversial article is not OR; and if either is controversial, it can be checked. I know enough German to know what the books are about, and so do several other thousand people here. The editors in enWP can communicate in hundreds of different languages. We have never accepted this overly restrictive view in WP, and non-English sources are used throughout, and explicitly permitted. We cover the world, and we use the best sources available. The only meaning of it being the english WP is that the final articles here are in English. anyway, i don't see he is related to this article. if his notability is in publishing books in multiple libraries, how is this affected? 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Oh I agree - translation is not important. Shakespeare would be notable to you, if you were only French speaking and he had never been translated. If I spoke German then I would create a stub on the German wikipedia and cross link it with this article... Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Victuallers (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which requires that sources should be in English to be considered verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article's main problem is that no sources are listed at all to even establish that he existed. (I am German and have never heard of him, but then again I am completely useless when it comes to philosophy.) – sgeureka t•c 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strangely enough, he has no artoicle on the German Wikipedia. --Crusio (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given the books ascribed to him, he must have existed. If deWP had deleted the4 article, that would be helpful information. if they merely never had it, its another matter. DGG (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply As far as I can see the article never existed, so this may indeed not mean much, as deWP is much smaller than the English version. --Crusio (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Sharma[edit]

Ved Prakash Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All hits I found on this guy refer to a different person by this name. In all likelihood, the article in question is a hoax. Blueboy96 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find anything on Google linking him with the publishing house he's supposed to own, and the sources I found seemed to be about a different person with the same name. I couldn't find anything at all on this popular and unusually prolific writer... one would expect someone with the career described in the article to have a lot more written about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and above as nonsense. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That criterion specifically excludes nonsense hoaxes ... and even then, this article isn't patent nonsense. Blueboy96 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete original reasearch concerns and without reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Defense Genre[edit]

Tower Defense Genre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game strategy Coreycubed (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Does not refer to the strategy of a game/games but rather to the genre of games.Paiev (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) See below. PaievDiscuss! 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic article on game strategy; the genre of this article is first-person shooters (the tower defense concept makes no sense in any other genre). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on a few points. First of all, a first-person shooter has the player take the role of the shooter to kill enemies, etc. In tower defense games, the player typically takes the role of God akin to the role of players in SimCity (with different gameplay elements, obviously; the player is attempting to defend something as opposed to build a city). They fall under the very broad category of casual games. As for it being on game strategy, I do not see any strategy included in the article, but rather an attempt to depict common characteristics of tower defense games. Paiev (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending that addition of reliable sources to establish notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very young article. Nominated same day as creation. Not constructive to delete a developping article. Sfacets 22:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, original research. It's unlikely that these problems can be fixed. Quale (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Still a young article, I am trying to get most of my resources as I type. This is my first wikipedia page being made from scratch, I have edited some in the past. I think it would be better to stay not only because it is in a way, a genre of games, and that it is my fault it is looking the way it is, and outside help would be appreciated to help me fix it. Ledgo (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment so what are your sources you're working from? Or is this original research? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply:I am working off of "Bloons Tower Defense" and multiple TD games from Warcraft III Reign of Choas. (There are literally hundreds of them) I am also looking into try another TD game like Tabletop TD to research it more. I AM researching this myself, it is quite hard to find any writing about TD games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, I'm going to have to say delete. Wikipedia does not allow for original research. See WP:NOR. All content must be verifiable. You need to find sources to back up your information. PaievDiscuss! 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Ocean[edit]

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

There is not enough info at all to even create a decent stub.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. IMO this is a valid stub for a more-than-notable fictional character. The article does give enough context. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence is enough context for you?? Also, what kind of information would someone put into this, that is not already in the plot of all 3 movies.(4 if you count the old version).Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence gives me all the context I need. If we make this article a redirect, to which one of the four movies will we redirect it? You may want to look at Agent Smith, Obi-wan Kenobi, Frodo, etc. for ideas. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3 characters are different from this one. They have several books, and movies written with them in it, Ocean is just in 3 movies, 4 if you count the older version. Also, I am saying that we delete all of the links to, no links at all, no redirects, nothing just get rid of this. 1 sentence is not enough for any article on wikipedia.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be ok with me.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepOne hit movie? No, not at all. Two hit movies? Meh, I am still not convinced. Three hit movies? You gotta hand it to the fictional Ocean. He's made an impression on the moving going public at large. Keep. He's fictional, but sufficiently notable.Evensong (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is only one sentence..., it is pointless. As of right now, if you want to add in more info, WITH REFERENCES that are not just from the movie, be my guest.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, your argument for deletion is based on the length of the article. But there are many featured articles on Wikipedia that began with just one sentence. The subject is notable, no question about that. As for the article itself, there is certainly some room for improvement (lots of room, actually...), but by deleting the article right now we are denying people a chance to make those improvements. You want sources? How about the movies themselves? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose a hypothetical situation where we have an article that says, Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. Just like that. And unsourced too. And it's the only article we have on the man. By your argumentation so far, you would probably ask for that article to be deleted, because, you know... it is only one sentence..., it is pointless. Please do not focus on the length of the article, and focus instead on the notability of its subject, regardless of the quality of the article itself. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Bill Cliton was a fictional character,and his entire story was already told in 3 movie articles, then yes, yes I would nominate it for deletion. Phoenix741(Talk Page) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also people have had a month to add stuff to this article, plenty of time in IMO to add stuff, since nothing was added, it is pointless.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 02:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A popular character in four Hollywood hit films, most certainly qualifies. Jonesy702 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BOLD, I've rewritten and expanded the article. I include a (very brief) sketch of the character from the 1960 and 2001 films. I have yet to add the recent sequels, but I think what's there is a fair stub of an article. Between the films themselves and other sources (Reviews?), the article is sourceable. As a result, I'd say it can be kept with further expansion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ZZ. Main character of 4 films and it should be easy to find reviewers who have contrasted the way the character was portrayed by different actors. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the changes made so far, per Edward321's arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mother 3 characters[edit]

List of Mother 3 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of the plot and characters sections of the Mother 3 game and is thus duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It does not assert notability, and it doesn't require coverage past the main article. TTN (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um. Except the characters aren't covered in the main article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're covered in the plot section, which I guess could be trimmed and split into a characters section. TTN (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article lacks sources and appears to fail WP:NOT#GUIDE. The Mother 3 article does NOT include this information, but the addition of this information would detract from it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Individual MOTHER3 character bios were already deleted/merged into this article once before; deleting anything else would be overkill, and considering the number and the importance of the characters in relation to the plot, the main MOTHER3 article would suffer as well. In addition, trying to merge the important characters into the main article would make it too long. Reference-wise, you're not going to find a whole lot in relation to this article, especially considering that most "reliable sources" on the internet don't have the focus or translation skills necessary to interpret the plot. (unless we start pointing to foreign language pages as sources); you'd be hard-pressed to find any more reliable sources. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the point, no reliable sources, no article, thats what policy clearly says. However, you would be surprised how much of this could be put into the main article in a condensed form, because even though there is a large plot section, there is not yet a dedicated character section. If you want, borrow some of this and distill it for the main article, but your right it wont all fit. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's no "reliable sources", then the MOTHER3 article should not exist at all, considering that most of the references in the MOTHER3 article do not specifically refer to the story, and the ones that would are not in English. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is established that the game is notable. Therefor Wikipedia can have an article on the game. Wikipedia is not paper and thus can afford to have a detailed article on the game. Wikipedia is not a game-guide and thus should stop short of providing complete game statistics and walkthrus. Standing consensus until recently has been that lists of characters were within the bounds of acceptable detail and that if such lists made the main article too long they should be split out to a separate list page. I see no indication that this consensus has changed. This information would be 'unassailable' if it were included in the main article. Deleting it as a sub-article is illogical and serves little purpose except to discourage good article design... people should then lump everything together into one long article rather than organizing it into logical sub-pages. --CBD 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has done no such thing, as there are no references from reliable sources, and without those it will never be a "Good Article". And without that, there is no demonstrated need for a subarticle. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable sources is only a deletion reason if it is believed that reliable sources could never be found. Everything in this article could obviously be reliably sourced to the game itself. The usual argument then is that the game is not an independent source, but that's IMO a spurious argument given that it only seems to be applied as a mask for 'IDONTLIKEIT'. Take a gander at the ISO 3166-1 featured list... entirely sourced to the ISO. Every bit as lacking in independent sources as this article and all the others on fictional topics nominated for deletion. Indeed, there are dozens of featured lists with the same sort of sourcing. It is apparently ok (even 'featurable') for every topic except fiction. --CBD 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum to argue about policy, if you interested in doing that, please continue at WP:FICTION talk page. And yes, the whole reason I am nominating these articles, and the vast majority of which have been deleted, because I believe there to be no references to be found because they don't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think that the article should not exist (especially when it's been trimmed so many times already for various inane reasons) does not mean you wantonly suggest articles for deletion without at least bringing it up on the respective article's talk page and say "We need more sources", or not try to find some yourself. Random article destruction doth not a good encyclopedia make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PeanutCheeseBar, either provide some references or your just talking to no purpose. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not address why you could not have started a discussion about it, or sought to improve the article. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe that none will be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an assumption though, and you're not trying to make improvements before salting what's already been butchered before. Please try harder next time. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mother 3 Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBD. The information is within the bounds of typical game coverage. And it just makes the information more easily organized. matt91486 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mother 3User:Ri0026 I always thought it was kind of silly that it had it's own page when it'd fit much easier into the bounds of the core Mother 3 site. Don't delete it though, the characters are an integral part of Mother 3's appeal.
Which is a problem as Wikipedia is not a gameguide!! There needs to be actual sourcing of this material and relevance outside of just the game to have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. Not many people are interested in computer role-playing game like Mother 3. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a separate article, as there are obviously people out there -- both Wikipedians and students doing research who will want this article. The Mother 3 article is a bit long already, and has NO section for the characters, just a link. I'll start a mini-section, just in case the consensus becomes to merge. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moijd. Delete away! Bearian (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as noted. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzo Tenma[edit]

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the character section of the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Already well covered in Monster (manga). Practically an orphan. I can't even find a link to it from the main article, though its What links here page says there is one. Collectonian (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The main article's (short) summary is powerful weaksauce. --Gwern (contribs) 03:16 11 December 2007 (GMT)
  • Delete per nom. Not notable. --Jack Merridew 11:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into Monster (manga) -- which does not, contra above, cover him very well for a protagonist. I would have thought, given this is exactly the sort of award-winning series that becomes a critical darling, and the homage behind his name, that he would have been discussed enough to establish notability, but I'm not finding any reliable sources. If someone else finds something, though, I'll immediately change that to an immediate-and-obvious-keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Quasirandom's reasoning. I just found out tonight that Monster (the anime) has finally be licensed in the States, so there is the potential for his notability to expand in the future (due to the fact that he comes from such an excellent series/manga). Merging key details into his somewhat limited bio would be a good contribution to the main article. bwowen talk•contribs 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per additional sources found and noted below in this discussion, which must be added into the article. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Eyes Kyo[edit]

Demon Eyes Kyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the character list, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm conflicted about this one. Given the character's popularity in chat boards (including his use in avatars and pictures), I strongly suspect this character can in fact demonstrate independent notability, but cannot at the moment demonstrate this for others. Nor, alas, do I have the time to do deep digging. Weak keep pending others finding evidence (hint: look for reviews that discuss him in some detail). If none is found by the end of this AfD, I will change that to (selective) merge per WP:FICT into the parent article, Characters of Samurai Deeper Kyo. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there are enough secondary sources, in among the slew of primaries below, to establish notability. As Kyaa the Catlord notes, it's existance, not presence in the article, that matters -- the rest becomes a matter for cleanup. I'm changing that from weak to definitive keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could the nominator explain what s/he means by the shorthand "current assertion for improvement"? —Quasirandom (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to show that this is more likely to gain sources then any other non-notable character. It does not have anything related to the real world besides a primary character poll, which most other manga have, to even assert notability. TTN (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm rewriting the fictional biography anyways. Also, this guy's the main character. I don't see why he can't have his own article. True the article's a bit messy right now. But cut out the unnecessary stuff and the article would be alot better. No need to delete or merge. And no real-world stuff? Then I guess he doesnt' ahve his own video games. Or his own anime. or his own plush toy. Oh wait, he does!

A little plush toy thing GBA game http://www.gamespot.com/gba/action/samuraideeperkyo/index.html PS game http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/data/563131.html Phone Straps http://www.cartoonpassion.com/smdekyophstf.html Bandana http://www.cartoonpassion.com/sadekyoap.html

Now, what was that about no real-world info again? Hell Pyro (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are part of the series, not the character. TTN (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As TTN says, or might be saying if he weren't being unusually terse today, merchandizing doesn't in itself establish notability. You need to show people are talking about him and otherwise claiming he's notable. People outside of those trying to make a yen off him, that is. (Dang it, Kyo should not be cute, not even as a plush toy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (To expand slightly, there's real-world information that establishes his existance, which merchandizing info provides, and then there's real-world information that establishes his notability. The latter's what needed to have an article about a fictional person. I REALLY wish people would stop speaking in a shorthand that allows the two to be confused by those who don't regularly read AfDs.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go search google. You've got people using his name as a screen name, naming pages after him, even making respect threads. Hell, there are also several forums I found. Hell Pyro (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SDK artbook And there's also the interviews with Akimine Kamijyo, the author, in the DVDs. AND the character profiles and small interview and commentary made by the author in the manga volumes. Hell Pyro (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you show that those provide real world information based directly on the character, they'll work. Just naming them and hoping that they may have the information will do us no good, though. TTN (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why Grimmjow's article got deleted. Oh wait. It didn't. Hell Pyro (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't deleted because of a bunch of fans. It has nothing to do with this one. TTN (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that "bunch of fans" there. The reasons I see are legitimate. Grimmmjow has real world info, and major appearances in the manga. That is true for Demon Eyes Kyo as well, except that he's in every volume of the manga and that he is the main character. If you don't like the character, simply ignore the article. Don't go around randomly deleting everything you don't like. Hell Pyro (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to know what else you'll need. I've already listed several items that show real-world info AND shows that he's notable. Please tell me what else is needed an I'll post it here. Hell Pyro (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying that the artbook and interviews do have information, then show such information in the article (naturally citing appropriately). It is then up to consensus here as to whether this information demonstrates sufficient out-of-universe context to satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright then. I'll upload the author created demon Eyes Kyo profile first. Hopefully it will not be in japanese. Hell Pyro (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, since my scanner isn't worknig right now, I'll just tell you which volumes they are in for now, and hopefully be able to get the scans up by tomorrow. In volume 1, there's a short and comedic sequence where the author and several members of the team discuss on how they were going to tell Kyoshiro and Kyo apart. At the end of volume 4, there is a short profile of Kyo and Kyoshiro made by the author. There's also a note in one of the earlier volumes on how they maanged to make Kyo's sword look more realistic. Hell Pyro (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's the first of the many popularity polls made:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6574/324121aa4.jpg

  • The first of many "Nagao's world" Samurai Deeper Kyo parodys:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6424/30555098gw9.jpg

  • Akimine Kamijyo and his team discussing over Kyo's name:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6068/82179872xw9.jpg

  • And here's a profile of Kyo and Kyoshiro, made by Akimine Kamijyo:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/241/scanoi1.jpg

  • Sorry, but none of those sources demonstrate real world notability. Everything you have presented is a primary source and thus does not lend itself to any standing outside of the character's fictional universe. Again, in order to pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), the character must have been the subject of significant critical commentary from reliable, verifiable secondary sources. As such, interviews with the author from such sources, substantive commentary from reviews and the like, and other things that show significant coverage are necessary for the article to establish its notability, wihch as of now, you have not done. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like notability can be established, just has yet to be. There are no deadlines and deletion does not replace cleanup. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the DVD has interviews with the author, Akimine Kamijuo. Unfortunately, I do not ow n the DVD. http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=6654451 that interview might contain more info.

Hell Pyro (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no real world significance is asserted or shown even to exist. Eusebeus (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this can count for notability: It seems that Kyo appeared in a commercial along with some characters from GetBackers (Commercials was for Magajin).
  • Here's the quote from volume 7, where I got the info from: "Did you see the TV ad for Kyo? Yup, there's a Kyo anime ad --it's being run as an ad for Magajin."
  • does that count as secondary source? Hell Pyro (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but again the coverage received by the character has to be significant. Your above example can be construed as a trivial reference. The DVD interviews are not trivial, but as you cannot clarify (seeing as you do not own them) on whether they are related to the character at hand, nothing can be done. Recall that if it is merged per this discussion, you can always recreate the page should sufficient sources be found to satisfy WP:FICT. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. There's merit in both the merge and keep arguments, but the fact that we have no deadline leans me towards a merge. There's no deadline to clean the article up, true, but there's also no deadline not to merge the article, and a merge seems a suitable compromise until such point as an article can be established that better meets WP:V and WP:NOT. Hiding T 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't believe I forgot this one: several calenders have been made featuring the characters from Samurai Deeper Kyo. Here's the one for February: http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9049/calendar1494929yx0.jpg . It seems like 1 is made every year (since I also saw this mention in one of the earlier volumes of the manga). And there's also the outtakes made exclusively for the dub only thing worth watching are the outtakes). Hell Pyro (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are attracted by the "legend of Ogre-eye", this is a "must-have" fan book to read and to keep. The content includes character introductions from the main ones to the sub characters, story digest, character ranking and drawing contest, questions & answers to the characters, plus other important settings, a long interview to the author Akimine Kamijyo about the creating of "KYO", a special manga "Samurai Gakuen" (Samurai School) that can't be read anywhere else and so on. All the great 263 pages of info, pictures, and enjoyment." I'm guessing that meets the requirements? Hell Pyro (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Multiple sources have been provided. Edward321 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Characters of Samurai Deeper Kyo. Done. Neıl ☎ 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mibu Kyoshiro[edit]

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

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the character list, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT into the parent article, Characters of Samurai Deeper Kyo, it was split from. I cannot find evidence this character has acheived independent notability, and given he ranked 10th in popularity among characters just in the series, suspect he never will. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between presence in multiple media and satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). To be notable, and thus have his own article, this character must have been the subject of significant, critical commentary; therefore, if reliable, verifiable sources have written on this character, whether his conception, development, presence in multiple media, their thoughts on his presence in certain media, and so on and such forth, then the article on the character can be maintained. Merely being in multiple media does not automatically provide notability, rather it provides the inclination that it is more likely that the character is notable. Find such sources and all the editors present would be happy to retain the current article. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do remember Kyoshiro being in a crossover with GetBackers and in a parody of Samurai Deeper Kyo. Same for Kyo as well.
  • Here's the Getbacker crossover:

http://s12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/powerpac/Kyo%20Scans/GB%20Cross-over/

  • And here's the parody, Samurai High:

http://s12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/powerpac/Kyo%20Scans/Samurai%20High/ http://s12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/powerpac/Kyo%20Scans/Samurai%20High%20-%20The%20Exam/ http://s12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/powerpac/Kyo%20Scans/Samurai%20High%20-%20The%20Exam%202/ If that's not enough I'll find more. Hell Pyro (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do realize this is a comic book character, not a game character, right? Those guidelines don't apply. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per merge arguments already made, and offer the opinion that maybe we need to establish a separate Articles for Merging debating area. Hiding T 10:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Quasirandom. Edward321 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Raw amount of information makes merge unreasonable. And until larger discussions about this type of an article finish, I'd say keep. Agree with Hiding on larger issue. Hobit (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no or minor references to this character. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Characters of Samurai Deeper Kyo - there is no real world information covered by reliable sources to justify the keeping of this article. However, the redirect is useful and shouldn't be deleted. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect - Per Dihydrogen Monoxide Tiptoety (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, at best no consensus. But I do warn User:Србија до Токија to avoid injecting nationalistic rhetoric into Wikipedia debates. Kurykh 04:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in Serbia[edit]

Albanians in Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was created by redirecting Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia, as stated on the talk page. The intent appears to be POV-pushing in connection with the events in Kosovo leading towards independence. The redirects were undertaken without any attempt to solicit comment on the respective parent article talk pages. Recommend Speedy Delete, but it is here because it will be controversial. Dchall1 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep 'I'm against deleting it. Kosovo is still a part of Serbia, according to UN Resolution 1244, if it's OK to say that Kosovo is in Serbia for the UN, it should be OK for Wikipedia as well. However, if Kosovo is recognized as independent by the UN, I will be the first one to vote to separate the article into Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia. It's perfectly OK to have an article that unites Albanians in Kosovo and Central Serbia, two entities within one country. --GOD OF JUSTICE 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep articles like albanians in Central Serbia or albanians in Kosovo clearly support separatism (otherwise there would be articles like Serbs in Republic of Srpska or Serbs in Tirana, Americans in Berlin etc.). Those two articles merged look much prettier plus there are no more albanian propaganda that is spread in those articles like separatism and nazism. I realy don't see why you don't support that article (except the fact that you were together with albanians part of various actions of spreading albanian propaganda, and prove is Kosovo war, and another prove is this. There is one more prove too I think you threat to one member who protected Kosovo article from albanian nazi separatist pro terrorist propaganda she received many threats, but Serbs protected her. Anyway this article solves many problems: separatism, pro terrorism, nazism dissapeared, Serbs are satisfied, Albanians are satisfied, and it makes all problems solved. If you continue spreading albanian propaganda, I will tell you to administrators and you ll receive a warning before you get banned. --Србија до Токија (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preferred solution would be to use the new page as a substitute for the previous "Central Serbia" place, but since the Kosovo section is large enough to deserve its own page, I would put a shortened version in the "Albanians in Serbia" article, and leave the rest in "Albanian in Kosovo". --Nehwyn (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this one is difficult. On one hand there certainly are ethnic Albanians in Serbia, both inside or outside Kosovo. E.g. there is a sizeable Albanian minority in Belgrade. However, given the contentious nature of the Kosovo article on Wikipedia I would suggest either deleting the article, or rewriting it to specifically discuss Albanians in Serbia but outside Kosovo. This would be something akin to the article on Israeli Arabs (called "Arabs Citizens of Israel"). Although Kosovo Albanians could probably de jure still be considered citizens of Serbia, de facto they are not. E.g. I don't know of any who are issued with Serbian passports (though it may be so). I propose the article's name be changed to Albanian citizens of Serbia and focus exclusively on Albanians in Serbia outside of Kosovo and their history.Osli73 (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article may currently contain some POV, but that's a reason to improve, not delete. I should also note that the concept of Albanians in x and of x in Serbia are well established - see {{Albanians}} and {{Ethnic groups in Serbia}}. I would however agree with Osli73's suggestion to try and avoid the topic of Kosovo in this article, but again that's not a reason to delete. If kept, and if the closing admin wishes, I would be happy to assist in removing inappropriate content (leave a note on my talk page). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps I wasn't being clear on why I started this AFD discussion. I'm not recommending deletion of the content of this article. If you look back through the history of this page, you will see that the article was created by copying and pasting the texts of Albanians in Kosovo and Albianians in Central Serbia, and then blanking and redirecting the underlying articles. The text has been restored to these two articles, but Albanians in Serbia still exists. I think Osli73 and Nehwyn have the right idea on how to solve this dispute. Dchall1 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. The article is borderline A1, so hopefully someone will add some context before we get back here again.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five-point electoral law[edit]

Five-point electoral law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. POV. Vanity. All Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors. The sole purpose of this article is to spread the claim that the five most important properties of an electoral law were universality, directness, equality, proportionality, and secrecy. I don't consider proportionality that important. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Yellowbeard (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm confused by much of this. I'm not even sure what the article is about, but what is the POV? Epthorn (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is a stub, and the alleged POV Yellowbeard asserts is not present in the article. It appears to be a reference to Polish law, or, at least, to Polish political science theory. Given the context in which it is mentioned in the article on the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, it might be better to leave it as a separate article, certainly that is harmless. But it should be edited to make it more clear the origin, and that should be done by someone familiar with Polish political science or law. It is also not "Vanity," and it isn't "discussion," that was a fantasy. Essentially, there is no basis for deletion at all; it is merely a stub needing work. There may be basis for merge. I did run one of the Google searches below through a Polish translator, and, yes, they do show reference to the subject of this article, it appears to be notable, but it would be tedious to try to determine that through the translations.--Abd (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice. Article about elections that are "universal, direct, equal, proportional, anonymous." Reference given is to a book, apparently collecting essays from Polish dissidents under the former Communist government. Without context, it's hard to judge the significance of this. Judging from "what links here", this is apparently a footnote to the article Sejm of the Republic of Poland, and the text may well merge as an endnote to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable concept in Polish political science ([26], [27]). Perhaps the English term is translated incorrectly; if indeed the concept is unknown to English political science this should be made clear in the article - but it should not be deleted.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If someone familiar with Polish electoral and parliamentary law were to add even a brief explanation of the concept's significance in Polish law, I would cheerfully change my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. — Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and add references. Otherwise delete. Visor (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Piotrus.   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sounds like a slogan out of Robespierre's times, 1793 France - Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood. And similarily as before, these points have nothing in common with the law practiced today during elections to Polish parliament. In reality, to be put on a ballot, a candidate do the Polish "Sejm" is required only to supply a resume and a party affiliation. No program or statement what he's going to do while in office is neither delivered nor expected. You may say - participation without representation. Once elected to the office, he follows the party (coalition) line: all bills introduced by his party (coalition) are automatically voted "yea", all the other bills introduced by opposition are automatically voted "nay". Sometimes I wonder, what these automatons like Polish senators of the latter days do in English Wikipedia? They're just brain dead pawns, still they're so many. greg park avenue (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a stub; definitely needs work. Possibly it should be merged. The nominator's contribution history is suspect, see Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and look at the first day registered. This is apparent sock puppet behavior and more can (and will) be written in the appropriate noticeboards about the significance of those early AfDs. I have no personal attachment to the subject of this AfD, but Yellowbeard has identified many voting systems articles and killed them, often with spurious arguments that may be unrecognized by people unfamiliar with the field, and if no editors who *are* familiar log in and check their watchlist during a sometimes short AfD period, it's history. It takes substantial work, with sometimes relatively obscure voting methods articles, to identify the proper sources, and some, apparently, vote based on shallow research. No blame, but sometimes it takes knowing where to look. --Abd (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is insulting. You admit that you "have no personal attachment to the subject of this AfD" and that you vote to keep this article only because it is me who nominated this article for deletion. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yellowbeard is an experienced Wikipedia editor who registered and immediately began hitting articles with AfDs, showing familiarity with policies and terminology, able to present AfDs with seemingly plausible reasons that can easily convince naive editors. As I said, I have no personal attachment to this article; however, if I saw it as utterly and clearly useless, I'd not have intervened even though Yellowbeard is an SPA sock puppet selectively and extensively removing voting methods articles. "Sock puppet" is not an insult, there are legitimate socks, though they do not normally vote in AfDs and such voting, in fact, is possibly a policy violation. When I have time, I'll make the appropriate Checkuser and other requests -- though anyone can do that, and it would be appreciated, but in the meantime I'm suggesting that depending on evidence presented by a sockpuppet, and not taking steps to ensure that users knowledgeable about the article know that it is happening and intervene if they care, is likely to result in deletion of valuable content, and, in particular, of stubs that might become useful articles. It appears that there is notability for this particular article here, but in Polish. What I care about is not this particular article, but the encyclopedia, and deletion of stubs and other relative obscure articles is causing Wikipedia to bleed, slowly, as editors who created such articles, who do have other lives outside Wikipedia, come back and ask "Where is the article I created, it's gone, and it's not in my Contributions, I'm sure I created it," and, if this happens to them more than once, they conclude that something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. As to insult, there has to be a person there to be insulted, and "sock puppet" is not an insult. There are some very nice and useful sock puppets on Wikipedia, but they don't go around axing dozens of articles without contributing real editing work. Again, look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and see what this sock has done. Sure, he got some articles deleted that deserved it, but quite a few others that did not, and deleting even poor articles can cause damage. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. The article as it stands can be speedied per A1 and A3, no content and no context. But Piotrus makes a valid point that the concept is notable and relevant, and should be included in Wikipedia. If the article is cleaned up, I´m more than willing to !vote keep. AecisBrievenbus 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as much as a dread old AfD's, perhaps this should be re-listed. I'm on the fence and we need an expert opinion before a proper closure can be made. Otherwise, if I were the closing sysop, I'd close with no consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Piotrus, if it can be confirmed that the article relates to what he's linked to. Obviously the article will need work ({{expert}}). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Marie Norman[edit]

Hayley Marie Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Early in the career actress that appears as #25th on a game show. I searched around, but am hard-pressed for good independent sources here that assert notability. Recommend delete unless someone can find and add some to the article. Lawrence Cohen 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable bit actress. Blueboy96 15:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. — Coren (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Flint[edit]

Mr. Flint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources providing critical commentary or development information. Article is just plot summary and other in-universe trivia. I had redirected the article to the character's \first/most significant appearance, but User:FrankWilliams (sometimes editing under this IP) has reversed it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The information above is not true. If one reads the article there sources and reliable; I think the books mentioned are reliable. The episode cited is certainly reliable. Real world notability talks about real world context; well the character although fictional was suppose be many well known and famous persons. If that's not a link to real world I don't know what is. As for being user User:FrankWilliams I see that this user has come from the same IP as this is an Internet Gateway but this is not me; I have seen some of that users edits and have edited that same ones as I was curious about Wiki; thanks for the clever analysis however. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take a look at WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:RS. Additionally, being a fictional portrayal of real people doesn't make the former notable; a fictional portrayal doesn't inherit notability from the subject being portrayed. --EEMIV (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article suffers from being written with no regard for the difference between fantasy and reality. "He was many famous people throughout history: Johannes Brahms, Leonardo da Vinci, Solomon, Alexander the Great, Lazarus, Methuselah, Merlin, Abrahmson, and a hundred other people we do not know. He knew some of the greatest minds in history: Galileo, Socrates and Moses. He was present in Constantinople in 1334 and witnessed bubonic plague kill half of Europe. He has married hundreds of times and to his anguish watched his loved ones age and die." I'm sure that, like all TV characters, there will be people who speak out about how necessary it is to have an article about this person (apparently, he's mentioned in some of the "Star Trek novels" too, oooh!). Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The comment by Mandsford is unwarranted and unbecoming of a serious editor. I've also checked his user page and he has a history of this type of behavior an Admin needs to look into this. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least I sign my comments, "206". Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article fails policies such as WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please add justification for your opinion; I don't see how this this can be used in any voting mechanism without an explanation. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - Did you miss the part where he identified guidelines and "policies such as WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF" that this article fails to meet? These are all compelling reasons to axe this material. --EEMIV (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - These policies are not clear cut and open to interpretation. He needs to explain how they apply or not apply. Just because this user agrees with your POV does not means he doesn't need to explain his/her position. I could very easily say the article does meet WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Requiem for Methusaleh -- although it might be even better to redirect to flint (disambiguation) as there are quite a few other "Mr. Flints" in fiction alone. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Requiem for Methusaleh does not contain enough information regarding the character to warrant just a redirect; this is the whole point of having a separate article. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information is itself not worth including; it is trivia and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what's stopping you from adding the information to the episode article? Sort of a circular argument if you ask me. Like looking for the money you dropped where the light's better? --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Flint is a minor character in the Star Trek universe. This article is unsourced plot summary. It does not connect out-of-universe, never mind establishing notability from a real-world perspective. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appeals must go to the court of attachment. W.marsh 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bow bearer[edit]

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

orphaned page, nothing more than definition. proposing deletion per WP:NOT#DICT Rtphokie (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Entry found in OED. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-09 16:01Z
  • Keep. This article is about a sub-official in the English law of royal forestry. I can't say that it can never be expanded from its current state, and given the nature of the subject, I think it ought to be kept even if this stub exhausts the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it was good enough for the 1728 Cyclopaedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia! Emeraude (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What a cute little stub. Useful from an historical standpoint, and unlikely ever to get many web sources, but I'll need time to find print cites. I've linked it to WP:LAW. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, nice! Keep, definitely!! Per all 3 of the above :) Can surely be expanded. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chirinuruwowaka[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable band as nothing was given to establish notability. Marlith T/C 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

The band is primarily notable for being formed by members of other famous Japanese bands. A look at the Japanese Wikipedia page for the band would probably be helpful in establishing this. No one seems to have had taken the time to fix up the English page though. Megaversal (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McElroy[edit]

Chris_McElroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

(Note: This AfD was placed by an IP who didn't give a rationale: in DumbBOT's attempts to fix that, an AfD discussion was formed with only TheGiftedOne's comments below. In order for this to appear like a semi-normal AfD, I am placing a rationale.) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable biography page, contains four links to pages the subject has created. Google turns up millions of Chris McElroys but not this one. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page absolutely DOES conform to Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living persons. Chris McElroy is a person of note based on his philanthropic contributions as well as his extremely large involvement in the development of the INTERNET. There are literally THOUSANDS of references to his participation in the structure of ICANN, as well as the overall structure of the web itself. Making him a person of note, and a semi celebrity in some circles. TheGiftedOne (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm.... why did you create an AfD page if you want the article kept? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user appears to be replying to an accusation made on the article's talk page, although why he chose to do so by initiating an AfD is beyond me...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks to me as though user 65.189.129.166 began the AfD without completing it - TheGiftedOne's response has taken the place that a deletion rationale would normally occupy, had one been provided (perhaps thanks to DumbBOT's efforts to complete the AfD?). --Paularblaster (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should I close this as a pointless AfD then, or keep it open in case someone else (like me) thinks the article needs deletion? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think it needs it, edit in a rationale at the top. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing found about anything relating to this person. NameCritic does show up in a few searches but that alone does not constitute notability. spryde | talk 16:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyd Black[edit]

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

Probably non-notable, reads like an advert. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen Software[edit]

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

This article has been deleted before. It now is revived with nothing to establish notability that I can see per WP:CORP. There are indeed references, but be careful to examine them rather than just consider them pretty enough: when I look through them they appear to mention, rather than feature Halogen for the most part. Some references do cover it more in-depth but they are investor resources, not necessarily a source of notability. Some are also broken. An editor who disagreed with the AFD the first go-around created this but I still don't think it's got notability. Epthorn (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: I'm not sure how to properly format the box on right to reflect that this has had a previous AFD which may be found here. If someone knows how, I would appreciate it. Epthorn (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow the fact that "DumbBOT" appears smarter than I is a little bit... distressing.Epthorn (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly, and salt.

    This article's illustrates a disturbing trend. Frankly, I am deeply suspicious of articles that spring into existence full blown, including infoboxes.[28] Many articles about non-notable software, communications, and consulting businesses seem to do this. I suspect that someone out there is offering lessons on how to suborn Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

    The article content seems entirely in-house generated, and has strong NPOV issues, as you'd expect someone in marketing to write: provides Web-based employee performance and talent management solutions. As you know, I both condemn and contemn this misuse of the word solution, and consider its use in this manner a per-se breach of WP:NPOV. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: That's what I was trying to say above when I mentioned how 'pretty' the references look, despite being very shallow. It smells like gaming the system.Epthorn (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (remaining). While there were a number of keep arguments, they mostly argued against the guidelines rather than how the players met them. — Coren (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

16 14 Estonian footballers[edit]

Heikki Talimaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ken Kallaste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aiko Orgla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tõnis Vanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin Hurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Janek Kalda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tõnis Kaukvere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaupo Margussonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin Taska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sergei Lepmets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrei Antonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vadim Seero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rasmus Tomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aleksandr Kulatšenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Either youth or reserve players, who aren't even notable domestically BanRay 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete by nominator BanRay 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Random player from the list (Sergei Lepmets levadia site) played for JK Merkuur Tartu in 2004 Estonian League in 2004 so he is notable. Please recheck them all.   Jhony  |  Talk   23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, Estonian league isn't a fully pro league, so players aren't granted notability "by default" and secondly, Merkuur were an amateur team up until their merge with Tammeka in 2006. Just in case you decide to check the rest of them, here are some links you might find useful: Flora TVMK BanRay 10:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks for the explanation and links, I didn't know that Estonian League is not fully professional, besides I don't know how to deal with notability in such cases.   Jhony  |  Talk   11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think common sense should prevail in such cases, if they aren't notable domestically, they aren't notable enough to have an article on here. BanRay 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gussev and Post, delete the rest as they stand. Playing in the highest league is not in itself notable, it has to be fully professional. But Gussev and Post are current or former national team players (not that playing internationally is automatically notable either, but decent countries like Estonia are. Non-notable national teams are countries like Bhutan, Swaziland etc). Punkmorten (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Post has never played for the NT, link. As for Gussev, I'm going to remove him from the list now, good job Punkmorten. BanRay 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to withdraw my nomination for Sander Post as well. He has recieved several international call-ups so, I guess, is notable enough. BanRay 14:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was in the qualifying rounds. BanRay 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot understand how the top league of a UEFA-sponsored country (i.e. one with UEFA competition places - I am not saying the Liechtenstein top league is full of notable players), professional or otherwise, can be construed as not containing notable players. There is even a relatively notable source that rates the Estonian league ahead of the Swiss Super League, the Bulgarian league, the Polish league, the Danish league, Austria, MLS (I wouldn't doubt it). ugen64 (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should get the guideline changed, then. It explicitly says professional league, and seeing as we have thousands upon thousands of footballers who already meet the criteria there's hardly a need to broaden the scope. Furthermore, but this is really beside the question, the notion that the Estonian league is "better" than the Austrian, Swiss, Danish etc leagues is just preposterous. And the Colombian league ranks above the Bundesliga? Yeeeah. Punkmorten (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a question. Does the guideline require playing in a fully professional league? Or is it possible to be playing at the highest level within the country (the top level of FIFA sanctioned play)? Let's say for sake of argument that the Tunisian top league is not fully professional (I actually have no idea). This would make the Etoile Sahel first team non-notable unless they have played internationally, right? That makes no sense because the first squad of a club like that is certainly more notable that the first squad of a lower-level club like Darlington F.C. Perhaps the Estonian top league is not as well-supported or covered as the Tunisian league, but I wonder if the notability requirement is satisfied here because it is the highest level within Estonia? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one of the best leagues in Africa, Tunisia is not a very good example, but I get your point. It must be a fully pro league, regardless of whether it's the top tier or not. I might be wrong here, but I think even being an international player isn't automatically notable, although I don't know where's that line between "notable" and "not notable" national teams, but then again, trying to define notability with a stack of strict rules isn't an easy task, so there will always be arguable cases. BanRay 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, the top division in Estonia is very very poor - the highest average attendance this season is 288 [29], putting it on a par with level 9 leagues in England. Even if it is a top division, I still believe the league is insufficiently important to merit player articles (and by continuing the argument for the articles, you'd end up with articles on hundreds of Sammarinese players, all of whom play in the top division of their country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attendance numbers have more to do with the popularity of sport in the country, they hardly reflect quality of the game. BanRay 10:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I hadn't realized the standard of football and attendance was so low in Estonia (although it stands to reason). The Tunisian league is of course at a higher standard, but it sounds like if someone cannot prove that it is "fully professional", the typical player in Tunisia is not-notable. That just doesn't seem right, but if it's the standard then we'll have to follow it. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You miss the point Ugent. I'm not claiming that anybody who is playing in the Estonian league is not notable by definition, but, at the same time, I don't think that there are around 100 notable players in 5 professional and 5 amateur clubs in the meistriliiga. I personally know a lot of footballers from the "top" estonian sides as well as several national team players and if I tell you that those 14 lads are not notable, please believe me, they aren't, at least not yet. Half of them don't even play for their clubs, representing reserve sides instead and that's in a league where even being a regular doesn't mean you're notable, there goes the key word again lol. User:Walericaz, who, in fact, is a very decent contributor, but tends to do a lot of things "his way" instead of the "wikipedia way" created an entry for every single player who was registered with the top three estonian clubs for the 2007 season. If you seriously think that all of them are notable and need an article on here, well, that's your choice, after all there's no way to measure notability with a dipstick. I did make one obviously wrong (ironically I was also the one who added the international players category to Gussev's page prior to putting an AfD template on his page) and one arguable nomination in a hurry, but both are withdrawn now. I really suggest you to review your decision. Oh and that "notable source" really is a joke, putting it mildly. BanRay 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these bios are most of a team, it seems. Whether they've played or not (not really sure), we would probably have to delete a ton of other articles as well related to similar topics with roughly the same amount of notability. (By the way, they may—key word there— have potential for a larger built article.)   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that we would probably "have to delete a ton of other articles as well." Arguments like that in AFDs are usually quashed and sent to the bin of WP:OTHERSTUFF... the only thing other articles have to fear is if they don't have notability either. And if not, why are we afraid of deleting them?Epthorn (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I fail to understand your logic there Jj137. What kind of precedent are you afraid of? And no, they will never be expanded, unless you do it of course.Half of them won't be playing football in two years. I'm starting to get a feeling that it's the ammount of articles that you people are afraid of. Do I really have to nominate all of them separately? Because I'm sure they will get deleted straight away if I do. BanRay 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are players of doubtful notability, therefore keeping articles in their current state is meaningless.   Jhony  |  Talk   00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haven't played in a fully-profssional or significant enough league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Players fail current notability standard of playing in a "fully professional league" (which Estonia is not) and do not otherwise assert notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's follow the spirit rather than the letter of the guideline. There is no fully professional league in Estonia, so surely the equivalent test for that country should be that the players play for some of the few professional clubs there. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can someone tell me the definition of fully professional league ? Which one is professional and which not ?Bartekos (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, all clubs in the league should be professional. If some clubs have first team players that are semi-professional or amateur, the league wouldn't meet the standard. It does seem overly restrictive for some nations that have a top league with professional and semi-professional clubs, but apparently this is the current standard for notability. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I know Flora Tallinn is a fully professional team and if it is , the players of this club are profis , so the articles should be kept Bartekos (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO unless someone is able to prove they do not fail the general guideline at WP:N, namely showing they have significant coverage in independent sources. --Angelo (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and add references. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Give[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Don't Give (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In my opinion the article has no use- it should be deleted Olliyeah (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me ViperSnake151 15:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but if so it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no references asserting its notability... still, it's probably a...
Keep based on good faith that the article's info is generally true, although it need references (trust but verify). Epthorn (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: pending any genuine policy grounds the nom might wish to advance to warrant deletion. Are there any?  RGTraynor  17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at this point. True, the article needs some references and, if possible, some expansion, but the reason for bringing this AfD doesn't swing it for me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep songs by notable artists often have their own articles. --Djsasso (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge I say if it is indeed one Avril Lavigne songs then put it in with her article under a sub-header labeled songs. --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Avril Lavigne. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try To Shut Me Up Tour[edit]

Try_To_Shut_Me_Up_Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. All such pages should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAnteaterNot (talk • contribs) 2007/12/09 02:40:19

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

The result was No consensus the article does contain some sourcing though its incomplete for all the information which needs to be addressed if the article is to be retained. There are obvious WP:COI with this discussion and the availability of the information this has influenced the discussion as such, taking a diffinative action with knowledge isnt appropriate. Gnangarra 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ford VIN codes[edit]

List_of_Ford_VIN_codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I've created a new book with the help of a b:User:Mike.lifeguard, b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes). It consists of all of the articles that were jarringly out of place on Wikipedia. I should also add information previously purged from articles was incorporated into the new book.

Articles in AFD or in uncontested {{prod}} state

  1. Ferrari VIN Code‎
  2. Volvo VIN Numbers‎
  3. Toyota VIN codes‎
  4. Lamborghini VIN code‎
  5. Land Rover VIN codes‎
  6. Mercedes-Benz VIN codes‎
  7. Maserati VIN code‎
  8. List of GM VIN codes‎
  9. Honda Automotive VIN codes‎
  10. Subaru VIN codes‎
  11. List of Ford VIN codes only contested {{prod}} as of time of writing

The majority of these articles were plagued with a number issues and violate a number of current wikipedia policies.

  • Rely heavily upon one source, or are totally unsourced
  • update: All articles except the one on Ford are totally unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanCarroll (talk • contribs) 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disproportionately weight towards a database-type dump
  • WP:IINFO
  • No wiki-linkage that united one manufacturer to the next
  • WP:A

All of these problems made the aforementioned articles a better fit for the Wikibook project. And, so it's my suggestion that we finally delete them.

The person to first object did so to the Ford article, it was User:AtholM for reasons unstated.

EvanCarroll (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not double vote.

  • Comment and reserve right to vote later. Perhaps the nominator might like to actually wikilink to valid policy reasons for deletion. WP:INFO is a redir to Category:Infobox templates and W:A links to the article about the letter A. Deleting multiple articles from wikipedia and shuffling the content off to some obscure hiding place where the information will neither be found nor added to is hardly what I consider a step forward, and I'd like to see some genuine reasons for doing so. --Athol Mullen (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye, updated. Be Civil, wikibooks is not an obscure hiding place, it is a method of unifying multiple articles that are outside of the scope of an encylopedia. Wikipedia is simply is not the place to construct a database on VIN-codes. Wiki-tech might be good here, as in group collaboration, but not under the umbrella of an encyclopedia -- probably not under the umbrella of a book either, but at least a book is a step in the right direction, further explication can lead to merging the book into a greater book that actually has a goal of educating rather than just listing niche codes. We don't have a article for every make/model of anything. Try to find a table of Dell computers and model numbers, or HP computer and models numbers. Some things are hard to put into prose, and a simple table doesn't suffice inclusion into wikipedia. Categories were made to eliminate lists. the SNOWBALL is heavily against non-prose articles, and this is a prime example. EvanCarroll (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I stated prevouslly, I only favor placing VIN code information in a Wikibook if links are provided in the body of the VIN article.THD3 (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not supposed to place WB links inside a WP article, it is linked in the see also using the WP template. Both WP, and WB are supposed to be self-contained, linkage is done through said templates. EvanCarroll (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. My historical COI is somehow a reason for me not to point yours out? This situation exists because you deleted a lot of information, not because I disagree with the deletions. What have I done besides disagree with you and receive your insults? Corey Salzano (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd claim your COI isn't historical; you haven't established my COI, other than presenting it as a fact. I disclaimed what might be perceived as a COI, and my involvement -- you did no such thing. And every claim towards COI you have at me, I have a direct parallel at you. We both work for companies that license data from chrome. That doesn't have any effect whatsoever on my arguments for deletion or inclusion, instead you attack ad hominem rather than debate the {{AfD}} on its merits. This is a logical fallacy that impedes the discourse that is supposed to take place in an {{AfD}} EvanCarroll (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Keep - I am not sure what is more appropriate with a Wikibook. It seems a redirect would work nice in this situation. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thud3, Salzano and Gtstricky. I don't understand Nom's opposition even to navigational tools within the VIN article... put it in a Wikibook, but you can't let anyone know it's there? Mandsford (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Thud3? If you want to link to the Wikibook in the WP Article that is fine by me. I just won't do it because the right way is per the WP template, the upcoming Wikipedia 1.0 is supposed to be self-contained. Not to even remotely suggest this article will ever achieve FA status in either state. The {{wikibooks}} template belongs in See Also, that is the SNOWBALL if the section exists. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as there is no assertion of notability or usefulness of the car-cruft. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is already listed on Wikibooks (so to speak) and there is no need for it here. Doesn't meet any speedy criteria as far as I can see. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pier-Gino Russo[edit]

Pier-Gino Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable poet--nothing published in reliable sources, thus failing WP:BIO. Blueboy96 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - An unreferenced vanity page, it would seem. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - A retired poet who is (if the birthdate is to be believed) 11 years old, and has exactly two published poems we can't see? Also, the web page is blank. Whatever the intent, this is all kinds of messed up. Psinualways forgetsto sign 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can see the web page all right. But that's not the point - he appears to be indeed a child who wrote poetry for a short while and now has stopped, that's all. --Nehwyn (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ack, my imprecise language makes me look like a fool as usual. I meant the website used as the only source is either blank (sometimes) or doesn't work correctly (sometimes), but maybe a big rock fell on the Transatlantic Internet Cable and the bits aren't getting through to the US. I thought there might be further info there. But the one page that shows up has nothing of merit on it (and was created just a few days ago), so yeah, delete anyway. Psinualways forgetsto sign 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 16:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Henry[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper--barely escapes being an A7. The usual collection of Myspace and vanity sites. Page is also horribly written. Blueboy96 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey washing a cat[edit]

Monkey washing a cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing a nom. Original rationale for deletion was: "not_encyclopedic" Tizio 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not encyclopedic, not notable and literally to stupid. Chessy999 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"not_encyclopedic" is kind of vague but there are no references except for youtube. Epthorn (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(?) - I've edited this stub and am not sure how to evaluate the notability of a short clip of stock footage. My best guess is to compare this to web content, as this is by now mostly known via youtube and similar postings. Although those are clearly "trivial" coverage, I submit that repeated use on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, accompanied with commentary, qualifies as criterion #3 for Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you find that to still be "trivial," then the thing should probably be deleted. Feeeshboy (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have no idea on this one either...Epthorn (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There have to be hundreds of thousands of amusing film clips a few seconds long. Absent multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of this one, it fails WP:N. Why should we have an article on every film clip showed on a late night comedy talk show? That said, it is funny. Maybe soimeone can find some references to give it encyclopedic context. Edison (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Moxon[edit]

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

Although I am a strict inclusionist, I am not in favor of vanity pages. This article was started by the person/user and only two pages link to it, the user's own page, and the article for a local club of which the user was a member. A Google search proves non-notability. It does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability and is a self-authored article. I don't know what else to say. Apparently this article has been removed serveral times in the past and the author has replaced it. See discussion here: User talk:Cmoxon. Thanks. Saudade7 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look at the edit history of this particular incarnation of the article, you will see that the author (apparently not Moxon himself) had doubts about whether he should have created the article in the first place. In fact, in nine months, the article grew into nothing more than a stub with no assertion of notability beyond the position Moxon currently holds. Delete until someone comes up with a more substantial coverage. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence of independent reliable sources as required by WP:BIO, and it's not clear that Moxon's position is notable in any case (I see British Computer Society Young Professionals Group is itself of disputed notability). delete Algebraist 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The position is not notable, and he has no other indicates of notability at this point in his career. I too have some doubts about the notability of the group, though the award they give might just be usable as an evidence of notability. But he doesnt have the award, he's just an officer of he club. DGG (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey T. Kuhner[edit]

Jeffrey T. Kuhner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. The only secondary source is a New York Times story about a story the subject wrote. Almost nothing is said about him himself. The other sources are primary: the story itself and a follow-up to it, written by the subject, and a short bio/intro posted on another site. Nomination withdrawn Steve Dufour (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing has changed the selection of sources. They are now the NYT story which mentions him and 2 website bio/intro's.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links to his own stories have now been put back. But still only one secondary source.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Insight (magazine). This is the notable place he works, even if he is not notable. Redddogg (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, I think. Googling JTK turns up RS on pre-Insight appearances on TV, some involvement in Croatian politics,[[30]], a book (completed or still in manuscript?), etc.[31], all stuff that doesn't fit in the Insight article but which someone who ran into him in that context and wanted to know more might want to know. What's the rush to delete this stub? Andyvphil (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing he himself tried to edit his article and was blocked. Check out the talk page. BTW I searched for more information on him too and only came up with resume type stuff. I added the bio/intro thing. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's necessarily a good reason to move to delete, though--a desire to manage one's online presence?
Keep He's the editor-in-chief of a controversial, popular website.Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, he and his minion weren't blocked -- the articles got a low level protect against anon and new editors while an attempt was made to educate him, and he seems receptive so far. And I came up with more than "resume stuff" when I Googled him, mostly non-RS but some RS. Looks to me like a decent stub, and no problem with technical notability. Andyvphil (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "minion" is a bit questionable to use about a WP editor. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may be an important person but one NYT story does not make him notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Steve Dufour (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and unmerge info hidden inside the template in the Insight (magazine) article. He seems quite an interesting chap: an anti-Communist who headed a national newsweekly. He has taken on Obama and the New York Times, which means he has guts despite lacking either good sense or a politically correct attitude. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough, with positions in academia and with a major newspaper before the current controversy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nothing against Mr. Kuhner, just the non-notable nature of his article. Find another reliable source and I will withdraw my nomination. I still have an objection to half of the article being taken up by one day of his life. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Ed. Guettarda (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the nomination after checking out the Croation article, which seems to have used a couple items from the WP article on the Washington Times BTW. This also seems to be a RS establishing Kuhner's notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kuhner is clearly notable, and moreso recently.riverguy42 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta[edit]

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

Delete - No notabity proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Note - I first time nominated it for AfD using TW, but the link "this article's entry" appeared red. I went to the link, saved the page, but next time I again when visited the page, the link showed red. So I removed the AfD tag and renomiated it for AfD. This time the link appeared blue. I don't know why this happened. I have redirected the former AfD page to this new page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Note - The page problem is now solved with the help of administrator Ryan Postlethwaite. There is no redirect and page problem now.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean he is not notable? He is a well noted journalist in India and a senior journalist at one of the leading newspapers of New Delhi (the nation's capital if you did not know). This newspaper is also the oldest English language newspaper in India and part of Indian history. Please don't bring in your biases here. Are the only notable people who are Whites and Christians or those who agree 100% with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.40.237 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bad faith nom. Gupta is associate editor of one of India's more famous English language papers, The Pioneer. He is also a notable commentator for rediff, another notable news source, and for Outlook, another notable indian paper. His journalistic work is also notable, and so is he.Bakaman 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Nomination to delete is POV-ridden and possibly based on nominator's own biases. Kanchan Gupta is an editor for one of India's oldest newspapers, dating back to 1850 or so. It is a notable paper, but happens to be right-wing in a universe of left-wing papers in India. It can be considered notable simply for being a dissenting voice, but it is a national newspaper with fair circulation as well. Gupta is a notable voice on the Right in India, where 99% of the journalists are Leftists or Far-Left. 202.164.132.52 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kanchan Gupta is about as notable in India as, say, a senior columnist for the San Jose Mercury News is. That is, not a top national newspaper, but one with a focus and a perspective worth noting. It is absurd to claim that Gupta is not notable. Ezhava (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As a matter of courtesy, I have desisted from commenting here because I am the author of the impugned article. However, since I am allowed to vote once, I suggest that Kanchan Gupta is undoubtedly a notable Indian journalist and commentator. His opinions and perspectives may not appeal to certain people, but following Voltaire's maxim "I disagree with you, Sir, but I shall defend to the death your right to have your opinion", I would suggest to them that Kanchan Gupta's voice deserves to be heard, and he is a notable person who deserves a biographical entry. Malabarcoast (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam International Secondary School[edit]

Rotterdam International Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - No notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I found it easy on Google [32] I'll go add a reference. Sting_au Talk 12:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... although I tend to think articles give some leeway when they're new, the way in which this one is written doesn't inspire confidence and, of course, makes no assertion of notability (or this would be a temporary 'keep'). The question is not whether the school exists- we believe that- the question of why and how it is notable. Existence is not good enough for that. Epthorn (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's changed a bit since it was first created. Could do with some more improvement, but I do think it will survive the AfD. Sting_au Talk 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I went and welcomed that kid that had been trying his heart out to get this article started. All he had on his talk page was a bunch of deletion warnings! It's no wonder people don't bother with Wikipedia. Great place for anal retentive's though. I guess I just don't have that attention to detail that's obviously needed to become a good editor? Sting_au Talk 13:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's always better to have a welcome before warnings... if someone creates their account just to start a page sometimes it just happens that way. Thanks for giving him one... hopefully whether or not his article gets deleted he won't take it personally. Epthorn (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable", as per the proposed WP:SCL guidelines. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, there is no consensus there for "inherently" notable schools at this time. Anyone can propose a guideline, but until it's agreed to it isn't meaningful Epthorn (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is custom and practice ... other schools are listed in this way and are in fact linked from wiki's own list of international schools. It would not be resonable to delete this one without deleting all others ... At least it does not reproduce what is on the web site and adds information that is displayed not there. Of course it is worthy of note that the school exists and contributes to the community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriss (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. There are appropriate sources available, so it passes WP:N. I think its too premature to decide this by the proposed WP:SCL guidelines. Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:N does it say that a source is notable if its existence is verified. I'm in about three phone books and have two papers published, so my existence is verified (plus my passport!) but that doesn't mean I'm notable. Epthorn (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that there are appropriate sources easily findable on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see the support for keeping this article. What might be of interest to some is a message left by the teacher of the RISS students that was left on my talk page User talk:Sting au#Thanks for updating the page. Now getting that message almost brought a tear to my eye. Sting_au Talk 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why a schoolteacher should be congratulated for writing an article about his own school. If a businessman came along and wrote an article about his own business stating "Rotterdam International Software Services is in the Blijdorp area of Rotterdam close to Rotterdam Zoo. It has an excellent reputation and customers from all over the world buy their products." and he had 65 GHits [33] consisting of himself and professional organisations of which he is a member, he'd be laughed off of Wikipedia. cab (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't say I understand the deletion/notability policies very well at the moment, but I don't see anything "notable" about this school. Any famous alumni? Any record or reputation amongst its peer institutions? Plus, aside from its own website and the other 2 websites briefly introducing the school, does it feature in any substantive literature? Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The process of "adding references to an article" is not done by inserting links to the school website in between <ref> tags at the end of sentences containing self-serving comments like "The school has an excellent reputation". Find some intellectually independent sources, please. The fact that they get zero GNews archive hits does not exactly inspire confidence. [34][35] cab (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep This school has an IB program which establishes some notability. --Hdt83 Chat 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably the better view is to consider all HS as notable for the sale of avoiding the need for these discussions, since almost all of them will be if enough work is devoted to them. DGG (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article as it exists makes claims of notability, with additional sources available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... eh? What claims are you talking about, exactly?Epthorn (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Golf Club[edit]

Toronto Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:N, unsourced - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno... the article seems to be asserting notability through its age and being the venue for numerous opens; IF it becomes sourced I think it should withstand AfD, but I can't find anything on google doing a (cursory) search. Epthorn (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The club has hosted the Canadian Open (professional mens' golf tournament) five times, and is the 3rd oldest golf club in North America, as stated in the article. Another point; the nom is wrong - the article is sourced from the external link provided. PKT (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (author of the article).[reply]
Comment: I believe what the nom meant was that the club's own website is an inappropriate reference for purposes of notability- which it is. We need a source unconnected and not profiting from this article's subject in order to gain an outside party's perspective.Epthorn (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has hosted the Canadian Open. Catchpole (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The club appears to be notable; a lack of sources just means that sources should be added, not that the article should be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While the article shouldn't repeat any assertions of significance made by the club's home page, the factual information should be fine. I don't see anything wrong with the article at all... the first U.S. clubs were in the late 1880s (not counting some earlier attempts in the 1600s and 1700s before the game's popularity waned) so that sounds about right. Some of the details can be verified with a quick Google search.[36][37]. At any rate, being the host to the Canadian Open alone makes it notable enough, and its age would also make it notable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is a historic, internationally known location. At a minimum it's a national treasure of Canada. Alan.ca (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a notable golf course, as it has hosted Canadian Opens and is the 3rd oldest in North America, as stated. Grover (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles Country Club[edit]

St. Charles Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:N, unsourced, and has "sweet" in its Reference section - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... "sweet" might not be a recognized reason for deletion, but it's amusing nonetheless. Epthorn (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured it gave a people something different to read besides the usual whining about how something may have notability when it clearly doesn't. this would be my...seventh AfD regarding WP:N I'll be participating... so... just join the bandwagon! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a better claim to notability is found than a chef. The assertion of being 'among the elite private clubs' is not really enough either, though if such a claim were evidenced by third-parties it might change my mind...Epthorn (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fanshawe Golf Course[edit]

Fanshawe Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an advert. No notability except for an attempt to get some inherited notability through unreferenced 'trivia' claims. Epthorn (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. There should be some non-trivial third party mentions of a major municipal park, somewhere out there; but this reads like a brochure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A trivial article on a non-notable golf course. Alan.ca (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chippewa Creek Golf & Country Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chippewa Creek Golf & Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Written like an advertisement, WP:N, only "source" is the one external link to the country club's website. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this article/ stub should not be deleted because it is a noteworthy sports venue in Hamilton and other sports venues and golf courses already have stubs & articles created here on wikipedia. This is one here is not the first golf course stub/ article created on wikipedia. Check out the following as an examples:

Nhl4hamilton (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, two of the courses you listed above DO at least try and assert some notability. The other one... I'm listing for deletion now.Epthorn (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Noteworthy perhaps, but there must be a third party that does so! Perhaps this would best be put into a single page with Golf Courses of Ontario or somesuch. Otherwise we need established external parties that claim notability for it. Looking at the 'reference' site (i.e. the country club's website) I don't see anything that could really be turned into encyclopedic notability. Epthorn (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.V.V.J. Swamy[edit]

N.V.V.J. Swamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - No notability proved with any reference. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I don't think this is the strongest case, there seems to be enough technical material of merit published to be of interest to people in (at minimum) the particular field of expertise. One of my "mental screens" for WP:NOT (don't yell at me, folks, I consider a lot of other things as well) is "will anyone care enough to look this up in 10 years? In 25? In this case, I suspect yes, it's entirely possible. Psinualways forgetsto sign 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, for now... I'm not really that close to the technical field, but from looking at the article it doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements as I see them; namely, nothing there asserts notability that he didn't write or co-author. The article has just been created, however, perhaps a notice on the creating editor's page requesting external sources for notability would be more useful than a delete? It seems like there's enough possible notability to give it a try. Epthorn (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: It would appear that the creator of this article is a new editor. Some comments / deletion warnings are on his page- perhaps he will respond here.Epthorn (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:This is my first article. Thanks Ephthorn for suggestions. I have added external sources for notability to the article. N.V.V.J. Swamy's contribution to the physics of relativistic oscillator is very fundamental and after so many years his work is still being cited (see citations from 2004 and 2005). Will anyone care enough to look this up in 25 years? I say yes. Thanks for welcoming me to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saritepe (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep among other things, author of important widely used textbook in its period. People will find this relevant now, as well as later. Either is a good reason. DGG (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes of The Real World: Sydney[edit]

Episodes of The Real World: Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Far too much plot information is listed here - clearly doesn't conform to WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no page created like this for any other Real World season, why is this one necessary for this season? Ejfetters (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation is limited to available information on the topic. The fact that this season is currently airing, and there are videos of the episodes at mtv.com is how I was able to attain the episode info. Such info for past seasons is not as readily available, but if and when it became available, it would be reasonable to create season articles on those as well. It's not because one is "necessary" and the others are not. As for WP:NOT#PLOT, I read that passage, and interestingly, it also recommends reading Wikipedia:Television episodes, where it says: "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page." All I'm doing is creating a season page, as there are many on WP, for series such as Star Trek, Lost, South Park, etc. This is hardly the first season of a TV show to have its own article. Nightscream (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a content dispute -- too much plot info is not a valid reason for deletion. Just be bold and cut down the extraneous information. Brad (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only because The Real World: Sydney#Episodes already does a great job in summarizing all episodes in sufficient detail. – sgeureka t•c 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest that Brad read WP:NOT#PLOT. --Jack Merridew 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I suggest you read WP:CIVILITY. WP:NOT#PLOT refers explicitly to fictional works. The article in question is a reality show, so has no plot. Brad (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was I uncivil? It's a TV show — "reality" or not — it may not have much of a plot, but WP:NOT#PLOT still applies. --Jack Merridew 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:EPISODE. These sorts of lists should generally be done only if having them in the main article would make that article unwieldly. That does not appear to be the case here. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Handled well in the parent article. Twenty Years 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all of this information is in, and is presented better, in the parent article. Lankiveil (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per the WP:EPISODE guideline. No compelling reason for an independent article. Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Richardson[edit]

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

Stub article on a very old person, no substantive coverage (tagged with refimprove since last month), and I haven't found any (though I don't guarantee that my searches are definitive). He is listed in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient unless anyone finds substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I have removed a ref to a wikipedia fork, not a WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of American supercentenarians or delete but don't keep. Victuallers (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO, any more than if someone were the "fattest person in the world" with succession boxes. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Parks[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub article on a very old person, tagged as unreferenced since September. I have found no substantive coverage (though I don't guarantee that my search was exhaustive). He is listed in Oldest people and in List of the oldest people , which is quite sufficient for this factoid unless anyone finds substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I also searched and could only find either results that returned a 404 or were likely sourced from Wikipedia (Chat Forums etc).Poeloq (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a reference if that's all that was required? and GRG[38] seems to be a reliable source? Sting_au Talk 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. GRG, for reasons that have been hashed over excruciatingly for the last few months, is not a reliable enough source. Cheers, CP 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Plant[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub article on a very old person, no tagged as unreferenced for the last month, and I haven't found any non-trivial coverage (though I don't guarantee that my searches are definitive). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it has no reference!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliyeah (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a claim that someone reached an old age does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N. There are no references, so the article fails [[WP:V]. Edison (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pouder[edit]

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

Stub article on a very old person, no substantive coverage referenced, and I haven't found any (thiugh I don't gurantee that my searches are definitive). She is listed in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient unless anyone finds substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's the "Sarah Knauss" of 1917, or the 2nd oldest female ever at her time. Neal (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • Her longevity is recorded in Oldest people. Where are the references which would establish the notability required for a standalone biography? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Boy, I would have to be a search engine to know that. As for off-line, I imagine it would be in the National Geographic magazine, June 1919 edition, which I don't have. Neal (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • Keep because you guess that a particular magazine might have covered her? If at some future date, someone finds some substantive coverage in such a source, then a new article can be created, but notability isn't established by guesswork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just getting extremely old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The references, which are mere directory listings, are not the substantial coverage required to show notability per WP:N. Inclusion in a list is sufficient. One would have to dig out the claimed National Geographic article listing her to see if it is more than a directory listing or passing mention, but it would still be just one source. Edison (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Political[edit]

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

Probably not notable. When First Political's founder created the article about it in 2005, I wondered whether it was really much more than one person with a webpage, but thought it should have a chance. More than two years later, however, I can't find any reliable third-party mentions that it even exists, and it certainly hasn't contested any sort of election. The only evidence it ever existed, outside this article, was its minimalist website, which now seems to be gone as well. As such, I suspect it's safe to say it only really existed on paper. -- Vardion (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Slrubenstein, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence in the United States[edit]

Race and intelligence in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a POV-fork of Race and intelligence. I also see a little of WP:POINT. We have had much debate at R&I and I think that the pressure of feeling like we are not moving forward made this editor try this way. In addition to these points, the article is a WP:SYN at best, a quick glance at the sources reveal that they are outdated and not US-centered. Which brings to the final point, the article is US centered when there is no reason for it to be. For the ongoing discussions at R&I see: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Proposal:_Let.27s_not_have_an_article_on__.22Race_and_intelligence.22
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Paper_chains
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#New_Ideas
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Consensus.3F

and what fuels me to believe this is a case of WP:POINT:
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Race_and_intelligence_in_the_United_States

What do you think? Brusegadi (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hesitant Delete as I think there COULD be an article on this topic related to U.S. views. However looking over this it seems like the protected nature of the 'general' page and the problems there is what caused someone to create a U.S. based one which starts out the same way. I'm not sure it's to prove a WP:POINT but I think the issues should be dealt with on the main page before spreading the (ahem) love around to new little seedling articles. Epthorn (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You are right. More than WP:POINT I think there is a tendency for the dispute pot to spill a bunch of new articles if it gets too hot. Brusegadi (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. We don't need another 20 articles on this subject. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Per Ryan and Brusegadi. futurebird (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jetman (facebook)[edit]

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

No notability established, no notability likely to ever be established. Quite possibly spam. Stlemur (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google search of "jetman facebook" only turned up a few forums and videos. Could not find anything in the way of reputable third-party sources. Probably spam. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's written like an advertisement, it's almost blatant enough to be speedy tagged. Applications are essentially extensions of the master program. If individual Firefox extensions do not have their own articles, then this article should be delete as per WP:N. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, should be included into the main Facebook page if at all. Poeloq (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope, not merge...this application was not developed by Facebook. It is illogical to group third party developments into the original product's article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -Should not be deleted, it is legitimate, only doesn't appear on searches as it is owned and protected by copyright against being shared by other third-party online gaming sites. 70.101.109.95 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, not mentioned on Facebook that importantly. Agreed, if other apps. don't have their own articles, why does this one have one? Fishdert (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Coredesat 06:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rove Mobile SSH[edit]

Rove Mobile SSH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable. Advert. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a bloody billboard:

Rove Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rove Mobile Admin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wrestling Federation[edit]

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

Consensus should be reached this time. This fails WP:N and despite the time given by the no consensus result last time, no sources that pass WP:RS have been provided. The promotion has no mainstream coverage in Australia !! Justa Punk !! 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A non-notable professional wrestling promotion that does not meet WP:ORG. Despite valiant attempts, the authors of the article have been unable to provide independent reliable sources asserting the notability of the organisation. The promotion has no mainstream media coverage in Australia. (Lifted from my previous nomination. Nothing has changed.) -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Quite impressed with the nom now as he actually gave the authors roughly two months to fix the article. (They tried but I think the org is really not notable.)
See, being not hasty to Afd won't make you look like the bad guy. WP haven't lost credibility in the past two months due to my actions. And my "prophecy" came true: Besides you can always nominate it later and the Wikiproject might even do it for you if they found out that the article is really non-notable. It turned out Hybrid wanted this article prodded and you re-nominated it. --Lenticel (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak KeepDelete. At first glance it looked like a clear delete but there seems to be easily enough sources on this. Macarthur Cronicle 13/Nov/2007 Wrestling's big finale for 2007; Illawarra Mercury 28/06/2007 AWF wrestling showdown comes to The Frat; Illawarra Mercury 29/06/2007 WrestleFest at the Fraternity; The Sydney Daily Telegraph 06/01/2007 No holds barred - Blood, sweat and cheers; some reference in Inside Sport; Mar2006 Issue 171, page 25; quite a few other bits in the Illawara Mercury and the Newcastle Herald; noted in the news as far back as 2000; Numerous mentions in "Events" sections of newspapers in addition to the aforementioned. Seems that we can have an article meeting WP:N, V and RS. I've read many of the news articles (through EBSCOhost) and they seem the primary topic of enough to write a good article. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC). Changing opinion after some searching - thanks for the good searching Justa Punk - Peripitus (Talk) 02:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have investigated the articles in the newspapers already and they were press releases - which are not allowed under the rules of WP:RS. Or was it WP:V? It was one of them. The Macarthur Chronicle is a community newspaper also unlike the others. There is no independent mainstream media coverage in Australia. Sorry, Peripitus. It can not pass WP:N. !! Justa Punk !! 08:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was under the impression they were advertorial type materials, certainly not independent of the subject or each other. It doesn't mean they can't be used, with caution even where a conflict may exist but they can't be used to establish notability under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just, it's RS. While some may be advertorials, I've just read through three, that are certainly not (they have bylines, don't include phone numbers/websites and don't have an advertising tone). Certainly looks mainstream and independant, I can't see a problem with WP:V/RS....N is another thing possibly. Although there is coverage and independant commentary, essentially they're a commercial enterprise that plays to 50~300 people in RSL clubs. One funny thing found in all this; they got a federal govt grant for $50K to "educate their athletes not to verbal competitors" - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Illawarra Mercury, I checked with the paper. Each and every story was provided by the promotion, and they were titled "AWF Press Release". That's an automatic fail on WP:RS and WP:V. It doesn't have to have phone numbers and so forth to be a press release. Nor does it have to have an advertising tone. The key is who provided the story. !! Justa Punk !! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are still some useful information in this article Olliyeah (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful info doesn't equal a pass in WP:N. And if it fails WP:V by definition it's not useful. !! Justa Punk !! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources mentioned seem to be about events not the organisation. None of the individual events seem notable so AWF isn't "notable by association" the way a band might be just because it went on one notable tour.Garrie 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly fails notability test. GetDumb (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think any issue with WP:RS or WP:V is relevant as this fails WP:N TaintedZebra (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there does not seem to be any reliable sources for this organisation. Failing WP:V means you usually also fail WP:N. Lankiveil (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African American Environmentalist Association[edit]

African American Environmentalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence that this organization passes WP:CORP. TheRingess (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is a bit marginal reflecting the fact that this organization is borderline Astroturf (though not quite a one-person outfit as the Sourcewatch entry shows [39]. I've linked to a couple of stories in the New York Times to establish some claim to notability. JQ (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opion it should be kept too.. Olliyeah (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article needs a LOT of work, but I did a very quick search of web site mentions and found at least a few compelling articles/interviews. Interesting enough that, absent someone getting around to it before me, I'm likely to be the one to do the legwork on this one. I didn't see anything in WP:CORP it failed to any significant degree, and the NYT mentions plus the others I've flagged for my own use when I get around to it seem to be enough merit for inclusion. Psinualways forgetsto sign 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep A quote by NYTimes indicates a position of importance. Shiva Evolved (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn Davewild (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishvjit singh[edit]

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

Seems much like a resume Marlith T/C 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So fix it. A cursory Google search on his name as spelled in the article's first sentence (there appear to be alternatives such as Vishvajit, Vishwajit, etc.) gives you The New York Times [40] verifying that he's a former member of a national legislature and notable per WP:OUTCOMES WP:BIO. More [41][42], etc. cab (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A former MP is notable per WP:BIO. The article is already marked for cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- although WP:BIO states that someone with this sort of position does not necessarily have notability, and though I consider WP:OUTCOMES too circular of an argument, the Times article seems to put the nail in the coffin of this AFD, even though he was not the subject of it, per se.Epthorn (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under WP:BIO's "Politicians" section: Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. The Rajya Sabha is the upper house of the Parliament of India. cab (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never mind, I see that the concept of "automatic notability" has somehow disappeared since I last looked, and that section has been modified to say "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", which means absolutely nothing at all. But IMO, the idea that we should be deleting even a verifiable barebones substub about anyone's congressman/MP because their country doesn't have newspaper archives from the 1980s online represents deletionism and systemic bias run amok. cab (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take the phrase to mean that the criteria can be taken as prima facie but not conclusive grounds for notability: rather than guaranteeing notability, they put the burden of proof on the editor who claims non-notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion, clearly notable with sources being added and meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep - but I see the AfD has prompted some clean-up work already, so the article is likely to be salvaged without my ha'pence-worth. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrea True. There really was nothing whatsoever to merge. Resolute 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More, More, More (Andrea True album)[edit]

More, More, More (Andrea True album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no notability, no content and is inappropriate material for an encyclopedia. Marlith T/C 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is "The" More, More, More, the main song of which reached #4 back in 1976. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Andrea True. I would say merge except it's just a listing of tracks on an album. There's absolutely nothing there that looks like an attempt to establish notability. Yes, I can hear "More, More, More" in my head, but that's not a good argument to make here...Epthorn (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with merging, but the album charted in a big way, with more than just the More, More, More song. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable sources (including the unverified Andrea True article) say that the album charted and went platinum. The WP:RS to look for is Billboard album charts for 1977. If verified, the album passes WP:MUSIC, otherwise WP:MUSIC recommends a merge. • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Andrea True what is not already there. The album verifiably charted per above. From my re-reading of WP:MUSIC, the album doesn't have enough for its own article, but it is notable enough for a merge. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the artists article, because it has no sense making an article only because of this 2 sentences!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliyeah (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grow (game)[edit]

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

Article is all original research, though it's been discussed, no reliable sources have been produced. Really looks more like a promotion or advertisement than anything else. Craigtalbert (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- discussion here makes me think someone is trying to find anything to establish notability rather than making a good faith effort to look through sources entirely. That makes me feel sad. Epthorn (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The games have appeared on G4TV[43] and been mentioned in the The Christian Science Monitor[44]. One of these games was commissioned by the Shibaura Institute of Technology[45]. The games have influenced game design in a competition sponsored by Jay Is Games[46][47]. While I appreciate that search engine placement may not fulfil WP notability guidelines, I would suggest that the sole search term "grow" resulting in these games being the first result rather than pages on growth suggests significant popularity[48][49]. For these reasons I contend that this article should be kept. --Lox (t,c) 11:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at the CSM article with anticipation that I would be proved wrong yet again but the article indeed only mentioned the game(s), rather than feature them. I agree that the search results "suggest significant popularity" but as you said, that may not fulfill notability guidelines in and of itself. An internet flash game will be very likely to be up there in search results because of its nature. I googled 'burger shop' [[50]] and the flash game came up before any "real life" institution. If the game is so popular and notable it shouldn't be so hard to find external secondary sources that talk about it in depth, should it?Epthorn (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Thank you for looking at the CSM article; I appreciate that it is not a feature, but contend it still suggests notability. I certainly do not claim that this game is very popular, but feel that blogs or sites that promote the games (i.e. sites that are not just mirrors of the games)[51][52][53][54] and the influence of the games in the competition cited above and other games[55] are what suggest notability. --Lox (t,c) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete wikipedia isn't google. every flash game with a fan base doesn't get to have an article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible delete as naturally WP:ILIKEIT. This really is the basis of a burgeoning genre of flash games and is both enormously popular and ridiculously cute. I will happily change my vote to keep in a jiffy if we can underline that with reliable sources, but this seems to have been a blog-only phenomenon so far. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Orphans of War[edit]

Star Trek: The Orphans of War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources cited except for a message posted on a fan forum. Appears to be fan cruft. Not even released yet. WP:Not a crystal ball. will381796 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect. The "fan forum" is actually the forum for the show's production team. It is a legitimate fan production which HAS been released. Iceblade1545 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, forums are not reputable sources that can be cited in WP. At least, this is my current understanding of WP:SOURCES. will381796 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not on a fan forum, no. But an official announcement made by the film's creator on the film's official forums, yes. But regardless, the page where the film itself can be downloaded is also referenced and the official websites (not forums) of the two teams involved are linked on the page. Iceblade1545 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This forum vs. official argument misses an important point. Even if it is official, it is a primary source. Notability must be established from published reliable sources intellectually independent of the subject. All sources cited belong to Hidden Frontier. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this article on a Star Trek fan production is deleted then you need to go delete all the rest of them. I see we have several on Wikipedia right now. There is a gray area in regard to legality of fan produced films, but the fans (the ones not acting in the productions I guess?) keep buying them so they are "out" there. In fact go down to the local video store and you will find them in the sci-fi section. Sting_au Talk 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Please address this article. You haven't provided any valid counterargument to the above argument that it is unverifiable, and as such no valid reason for keeping this article. Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But he's right. If this article was deleted, then all the other Trek fan productions would have to be deleted as well based on the same arguments. And it isn't unverifiable. There is a link in the article where the film itself can be watched and the set was visited by Rod Roddenberry and featured in his podcast. Iceblade1545 (talk) 1:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep; Star Trek articles usually see me recommending delete (especially because of arguments like the WP:OTHERSTUFF above) but this one appears to have a link that, while it goes to a forum, should be allowed to establish the same sort of notability we would see in movies about to come out. Grain of salt: since I don't know anything about Star Trek, I could be wrong about the authority of the forum, but it appears legit. Epthorn (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page from the "Otherstuff" link. I hadn't seen that one before (still fairly new). Important to remember though that, "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." I found a more appropriate link (it's official policy), WP:CON That's what we don't have here. Sting_au Talk 10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While editors need not follow essays, you should probably take a look at that particular one since it deals directly with AFD and you will probably find yourself having a difficult time of building consensus if you use many of the arguments listed there. My reference to WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a policy-demand or WP:WIKILAWYER statement; it is, rather, an essay which I believe in. Instead of explaining why I believe it is unhelpful to use the 'other stuff' argument every time I'm in an AFD, it's easier to just point to that essay, which is probably much more articulate than I could be on the topic.Epthorn (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you completely missed the, "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" bit as well? :-) WP:CON wasn't a cheap shot by the way. The vote I gave was "Keep" and that will remain my opinion even if I also am unable to articulate it any better than that. Wikipedia has a broad range of people from all walks of life. I'm just one of them. I'm going to continue to keep giving my opinion where I see it necessary to do so. Sting_au Talk 11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I didn't miss that... I didn't limit myself to linking to the page, however. I gave a reason why I thought the article should be kept, and then pointed to the "other" blurb as well. I try and avoid thinking about all the little clauses of those pages like the one you just mentioned because it would drive me insane. Try to accuse someone of Wikilawyering without being a wikilawyer yourself... try citing WP:IAR without balling up in a corner and twitching. I need to go get my morphine...Epthorn (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :-) Yeah it's only Wikipedia after all. If life here drives you insane just turn the computer off and take a break. Sting_au Talk 13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is an impressive fan production, I can find no mention of the show from sources other than the show's producers and user forums. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see independant reliable references that verify notability. Without such, it comes off as an advertisement. (I also fail to see evidence of WP:CRYSTAL, but maybe I just missed that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-read the article. The article states the sequel will soon be released. I rescind WP:CRYSTAL as being a reason for deletion. Lack of notability and lack of verifiable, independent sources remain. will381796 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:V. This isn't even an unreleased, projected studio production. This is an unreleased, projected fan film. I have serious doubts about the notability of fan flicks at all, never mind ones that don't yet exist.  RGTraynor  16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly you didn't read the article very carefully or you would see that it has, in fact, been released and there is even a link to where it can be watched. And if this were the first fan film to have an article made about it, you would have a point. But there are, in fact, several others, Star Trek-related and otherwise. And the lack of independent sources has been rectified. Iceblade1545 (talk)
      • I'm sorry...I don't see the independent sources. An example of an independent source: if a national newspaper wrote an article on the fan film, if StarTrek.com wrote something about the fan film, if a major magazine wrote a review of the fan film. These are independent verifiable sources. The Hidden Frontier and the Intrepid websites are hardly independent as you described this fan film as being "a new Star Trek fan production from the creators of Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and Star Trek: Intrepid." Your only other sources are the Hidden Frontier forum and the TrekUnited forum, both of which are not suitable as sources. will381796 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has it? I see nothing in the three references posted that qualifies as a reliable source. Two link to fan forum sites, one to the makers' own site. Certainly a link to YouTube is meaningless; my most recent choral performance doesn't become notable because it's up on YouTube. It is not as if Trek or SF in general is without publications or widely recognized reliable sources. That aside, if other fan films likewise lack notability or reliable sources, they should be put up for AfD as well.  RGTraynor  16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Point us in the direction to the other fan films and we will check them out and nominate them for deletion or fix them if possible. will381796 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, changed from Keep; as I was worried, I misunderstood the forum. I thought it was an actual studio production, not a fan film. If it were the former and the forum were official, that would be a different story. Epthorn (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karakura Town[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICTION. Extremely excessive detail about a fictional place in the Bleach anime and manga series. Article is almost all WP:PLOT and WP:OR. Maybe transwiki to Wikia:Bleach, but fails all guidelines for being on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to Bleach (manga)#Setting. — Coren (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hueco Mundo[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICTION, purely in-universe article that is full of WP:PLOT and WP:OR. Extremely excessive detail about a fictional place in the Bleach anime and manga series. Maybe transwiki to Wikia:Bleach, but fails all guidelines for being on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, shouldn't this be about the article, not the nominator? Xymmax (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think that this aritcle was rather helpful, as well as the soul sociaty one. I see how it is aginst the rules; How ever, if it's ok, I can add a "location" section under "Bleach" and paste Hueco Mundo, and Soul sociaty, in order to save the work, and keep the refrecnces. I just think it would be a waste to delete them completly. Dokuhebi (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bleach (manga)#Setting per above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although the destination does appear to be disputed. Given that the concensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hueco Mundo to Bleach (manga)#Setting, this is where I'll point the templates. — Coren (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Society[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICTION and complete WP:PLOT and WP:OR. Extremely excessive detail about a fictional place in the Bleach anime and manga series. Maybe transwiki to Wikia:Bleach, but fails all guidelines for being on Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into a single article (List of Bleach locations) with all other locations. --Hanaichi 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge onto Bleach Page, not start a new Bleach locations page unless real-world notability for such a topic can be established.Epthorn (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs cleanup, but not insurmountable. If more detail could be given on Hanaichi's idea, it may be appropriate, but I don't know what those locations to merge would be. If anything, it should be a redirect, not a delete, as I could certainly imagine people searching on this term, and the term is (currently) only appropriate to the Bleach universe. -Verdatum (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bleach (manga). If sources can be found to demonstrate notability, then the article can be recreated. While I'm leaning towards the perception that comments on the setting could be found in English media, given that anime and manga have reached that part of the storyline, I'll await their actual inclusion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is AfD becoming the new first step in merge discussions? These noms are smelling awfully similarly to gaming the system. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep It does need cleanup, but I really don't see how this article could be merged and it does discuss a topic that is necessary to understanding Bleach. Besides, there are concerns addressed about this nominator here brought up by Ynhockey. Sasuke9031 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're deciding based on me following the recommended method of dealing with issues and NOT answer a flame baiting message left by a user on my talk page (which is also WELL within my rights?). That isn't an obvious keep, more like trying to make a WP:POINT and your personal dislike of the nominator. Collectonian (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    like the nomination itself isn't any better? And isn't it odd that you happen to spring up after the whole Pilotbob issue? I could be wrong, but I'm suspecting sock/meatpuppetry. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Spring up? Excuse me? I've been on Wikipedia for over two years and despite your frequent unfounded accusations and innuendos, I am not anyone's sock puppet or meat puppet. Never even heard of Pilotbob. The nomination was made per Wikipedia notability policies. Soul Society does NOT meet the WP:FICT and the article is pure WP:PLOT and probable WP:OR. A cleaned up, shorter version could be seen as appropriate as the intro to List of Bleach shinigami or to the Soul Society section in List of Bleach characters. This article, as is, is fancruft and unencyclopedic. Transwiki to the Bleach wiki and let Wikipedia be the verifable, notable encyclopedia is it supposed to be. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep it, and so far that's the main reason given in almost all keep responses to many recent character and location AfDs. Collectonian (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask you to read the other reasons I gave out for the keep vote? I explicitly said that I didn't see how this topic could be merged. If User:Hanaichi went into a little more detail about her merge proposal I might feel differently, but as of now I do not see how anything of this scope could possibly be merged. My advice is to clean up any and all OR and find some third party references. Seeing as how we are on that arc currently in the English version AND there are more than enough competent internet translators that could translate romanji into English, I do not see how we couldn't save this article. Furthermore, cleanup is the first step you should take. If that does not work, discuss merging the article and if THAT does not work, THEN bring it to AfD. Deletion is supposed to be a LAST RESORT, not a first option. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What reason did you give except saying you have "concerns" about the nominator and that you think its fine the way it is. It is NOT the job of other editors to prove the notability of a topic. That should be done as soon as the article is created, not "eh, we'll get around to it one day, but gotta keep it because I love Bleach and this is super important to the show." No one has yet to give any real-world evidence to counter the points in the nomination nor adequately shown why it can not be properly fitting in one of the larger more notable articles, such as the two ways I suggested. You may "not see how" it can be done, but it has been done nicely on other articles about anime/manga series with multiple species/major groups and it not only improves the articles, but also meets the WP:FICT requirements. Collectonian (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? I still think that you should have tried to use all other options before you took it to AfD. That just makes you look like a sockpuppet, which after looking at your userpage, I get that you are not, so sorry about that accusation, but still it should have been tagged first. The Bleach taskforce is one of the more active ones around. They could have found stuff. Consideration for next time, perhaps? Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see...the same "active" task force that let such articles be created? Like they could be trusted to do such a thing. The fact that there are tasks force for a single show would seem to point to a much bigger issue in the whole Anime/Manga project and its support of unnotable articles that blatantly go against multiple Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And, I see you again ignored the real issue and the request for some support. You've said keep because its "obviously notable" yet you have not provided a single reliable source that actually supports that claim. "they could have found stuff" is NOT acceptable. Notability should have been established the moment it was decided that this topic could not be covered in the main Bleach article or in the character article. Despite this article being TWO years old, notability STILL hasn't been established. Sorry, but they had plenty of time and never bothered. If its so important to the Bleach universe, shouldn't it have been one of the very first articles fixed. Collectonian (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think you are saying anything short of I don't like this. How many times have I had to say this? Let it be worked on if you tag it, and stop disrupting Wikipedia just to make a point. Sasuke9031 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "disrupting" Wikipedia to make a point. I'm working on cleaning up and improving articles, same as anyone else. And, FYI, I do like Bleach and enjoy watching it. I'm rather ticked at Cartoon Network for taking it out of the weekday Adult Swim rotation this week and putting in one of their self made things. However, I know how to put aside my personal feelings about a topic to actually comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collectonian (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe Collectonian is just trying to make a point. He and others believe the article fails to demonstrate notability according to WP:FICT and that the bulk of the article is WP:PLOT and/or WP:OR, and he believes the article is not and will not be able to show notability, and without the plot and original research, the article has little potential to expand beyond the definition of the term. That is a reasonable grounds for deletion, and wholly separate from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It sounds like some wikistress is starting to rise, perhaps we should all have a nice cup of tea. -Verdatum (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wake up, people. You must wake up. Wikipedia has obviously grown beyond what it's original aims were. Therefore, we must adapt to this situation. Deletion is not the answer, adaptation is. I don't know why everyone is so hung up on old policies that serve to hinder this project. WP:IAR exists for a reason, and that reason is that if we do not adapt to the ongoing demands of our project, then we doom it to failure. Do you really want to see Wikipedia go down the tubes because of a few deletionists that have not bothered to read into what they are trying to delete? Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR is not a blanket reason to ignore what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia. On the contrary, it stresses that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you should only ignore rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. The reason we have WP:N (and all of its related guidelines) is to maintain that image of an encyclopedia, which stresses that topics must be significant in the real world as a result. Collectonian has brought a valid point (none of that WP:POINT intended) concerning the notability of the article, and if you believe that it should be kept, then state your argument as to why without resorting to ad hominem arguments that have no place in discussion here. If you wish to refute his argument, then provide sources that indicate notability, and I am sure that he will gladly concede the point. Attacking him and acting as if there exists a conspiracy is not only unfounded, but gives the impression of bad faith in his actions, which is certainly not necessary or warranted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there's no call to bash Collectonian (btw "he" is a she - not that it matters for our purposes here) for simply asking that existing policies be enforced. Take a look at the Trinity Blood page, she's done good work there practicing what she preaches. In addition, if transwikied none of this stuff would truly be deleted. Xymmax (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Let me say that agree that notability of Soul Society by itself is questionable. However, this is a central part of the Bleach universe, and I can understand it receiving expansive treatment. Given the size of the Bleach article, this article may qualify, per WP:FICT as one of those that is split off from the parent article for size reasons, and whose notability should be evaluated as part of the parent article. I do not see that such discussion took place on the talk page, but it may have been considered. The Bleach Work Group seems to be one of the more active and responsive ones, I would simply tag the article (because as far as I can determine it never has been tagged for notability or anything similiar) and give them a reasonable shot at improvement. Xymmax (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Agree with Xymmax. --SimpleParadox (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest merging into a single article because it would be an overload of information in the main page. I'm sure there would be other information out there which qualifies the article for WP:N. Collectonian has a good point in which there are lack of secondary sources and real world information, but I'm sure if additional information was found and added; and cited by secondary sources, along with real world information, all three articles in question could be merged into a single article. I kinda envy the location articles which have real world information given by the creator, example being here. --Hanaichi 02:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Bleach locations. Finally, some detail on the proposal. Now I see how it can be merged. That's all you needed to say. Sasuke9031 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into either Shinigami (Bleach) or Bleach (manga)#Setting. I don't particularly care which. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hanaichi's suggestion. If not feasible, merge into the Shinigami (Bleach) article or the Setting section of the main Bleach (manga) article. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hanaichi's suggestion, tag it for notability, then give the Work Group some time to clean it up with sources. Given the popularity of the series and the in-universe importance of this setting, I strongly suspect that references can be found, and those with the expertise should be given a good-faith chance to build a better article. —Quasirandom (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd rather keep with consensus, which says merge. I still want to know why AfD is now the first step in merge discussions Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep Per the above points. --Sharkface217 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. We need this up for more info. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I agree with Xymmax, that this article should be marked as a stub. Maybe some of the Bleach Work Group could be contacted to see if they have anything to add to the article. If not, I would suggest merging into List of Bleach locations. Because of the existence of Hueco Mundo, and because I think some minor locations could be added to the article. Laptopdude (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tag variants[edit]

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

No sources cited. Original research. will381796 (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Per WP:OR. I am the creator of the page and my Speedy tag was removed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As the page's creator is requesting its deletion. will381796 (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this original research, exactly? I picked one entry at random, "smear the queer", and was able to find an article about it, by Alan Dundes, in the Journal of Psychoanalytic Anthropology in under 1 minute. Uncle G (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- creator wants deletion; OR; "Smear the Queer" may deserve its own article, but it does not establish this whole article anything other than original research particularly when the creator says as much. Epthorn (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article gives plenty of material with which, if properly sourced, the Tag (game) article can be expanded into a Good or even a Featured Article, but there is also too much junk material to consider a keep for the time being. And the problem, right now, is that because of the lack of sources, we do not know which is which. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67 (sex position)[edit]

67 (sex position) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as NomOnly ref is urban dictionary. Appears to be non-notable neologism.No evidence provided of widespread usage. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Just a variant of the "68" joke (George Carlin?). JJL (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In my opinion it should be merged into the 68-position as a variantOlliyeah (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why would this need to be included in an encyclopedia? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of it, nor has a google search produced good results. There are no references either. --Astroview120mm 06:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. Wikipedia is not for things you made up in... well, I hope you didn't. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scieno Sitter. krimpet✽ 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScenioSitter[edit]

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

non-notable software, non-sourced information, list of sites violates WP:NOT Mhking (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is actually the same software as Scieno Sitter. Are we bundling this in this AfD? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak keep, not really a big major widely used software (and is it even used these days any more, this thing appeared, like, what, 10 years ago?) but on the other hand it's covered by media (Salon.com) and I don't technically know any reason why it should be deleted on those grounds. Note: I've removed the complete list of censored sites due to copyright reasons, and the fact that it was not encyclopaedic in first place. Probably should be merged with Scieno Sitter. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If there's anything not already in Scieno Sitter, merge it in. There was a recent post on Digg that made it look like this is breaking news rather than over ten years ago, so perhaps Billsstory didn't realize that the Scieno Sitter article already covered it? AndroidCat (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect -- I agree with AndroidCat (talk · contribs). Merge/redirect this to Scieno Sitter, which is more comprehensive/sourced. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Actually, I double-checked, there is not really anything here that is not already covered in the Scieno Sitter article, so why not just WP:SNOW and redirect this to Scieno Sitter? Cirt (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      •  Done -- I was WP:BOLD and redirected to Scieno Sitter. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to restore the article and/or comment here. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Quarterly[edit]

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

I had this up for speedy but it does assert notoriety and the creator keeps removing the CSD notice, so I thought I would bring it to afd. To me this publication fails to meet WP:N. meshach (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I did not realize that a different user removed the tag the second time. The source is enough for me, I withdraw the nom. meshach (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This publication is notable enough to be used as a resource in some American universities. This page [56] alone should convince you. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Australian Quarterly is such a long running publication, it surprises me that the article is up for deletion. Maybe the article could be improved a bit, but it should not be deleted. Many famous Australian politicians have contributed to Australian Quarterly. You may agree or disagree with the content in Australian Quarterly, or the politicians and commentators who wrote in it, but the publication has a rather historic significance in Australia.Lester 03:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep clearly notable. JJL (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable journal. I looked in the library catalogs of three universities in the U.S., and all three of them subscribe or have subscribed to this journal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. Note that I, not the creator removed the speedy tag the second time. Dsmdgold (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Slocum victims[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of General Slocum victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a recreation of a previously deleted page - This page quite clearly violates WP:NOT. Furthermore, this page passed deletion previously and was recreated by an adminstrator outside of process, without rationale. Attempts to reach the administrator concerning his reasoning have not met with response. Attempted SPEEDY was removed. Djma12 (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...List of victims of the Rock Springs massacre, List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. Tim Q. Wells (talk)
  • Comment/Question: Do you have an argument in favor of keep other than the fact that those other pages are around? I would tend to disagree with that logic on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epthorn (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had AfD's, and were kept. Please understand what you are citing before you cite it. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they had AfDs and were listed as No Consensus, and by default kept. This one HAD an AFD, and the consensus was DELETE. It was deleted, then recreated out of process. I have no personal interest in this article. I am simply against the random recreation of a previously deleted article outside of standard wiki protocal. Djma12 (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The VA Tech article was Consensus Kept twice. This article was recreated based on the precedent of those consensus keeps. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 21:32Z
The list does not violate WP:MEMORIAL. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G4. That the recreator is an admin has no bearing on the case. Deor (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as well. What is new here? In any case, WP is not a directory or list-repository. Epthorn (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said it is? List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre was AFD'd twice, and both results were a consensus to Keep. Clearly you and the community differ about what Wikipedia is. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 16:17Z
      • If you think one AFD determines what the community thinks, you must see a much more perfect system than I do. By your logic, what does this AfD and the previous ones on this topic indicate?Epthorn (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think two AFD consensus keeps is pretty definitive. If ever for the VA Tech article, there is a consensus to delete and keep deleted, then I would believe the tide has turned against lists of victims. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 18:07Z
  • Speedy delete per CSD G4, unless the recreating admin can demonstrate that the recreation followed proper procedure. Consensus on deletion has already been established. I'm not the admin who declined the speedy, but I did put a courtesy "hangon" note on the article to give the recreating admin time to explain, since his edit summary was malformed and suggested he may have attempted to link his rationale. The admin did not respond to my note although he has edited once since the note was left, possibly in reponse to the note below mine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote as you like. I recreated based on the two consensus votes to Keep the VA Tech list of victims. I was going for content over bureaucracy. But whatever the community of AFD voters prefers is fine. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 16:17Z
      • Comment I can only guess (having not been involved in that AfD), that the Va Tech, and even the Titanic list is there because at least some of the individuals involved are notable, and have Wikipedia articles. Even Columbine has a few articles on individuals. Admittadly, some of that is sstrictly because those events were heavily covered by the modern news media, while the Slocumb was covered, though individual stories were either not likely as covered, or those stories have been buried by time. In any event, the only notable people on the Slocumb list are the two survivors. The list of the dead, tragedy that it was, was not a list of notable people as per WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if I can find a professor who died on the Slocum, the whole list is legitimated? Or at the very least, if I find a semi-notable individual among the 1000 victims, and create an article for that individual, then the article is fine? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 18:14Z
      • Comment I would not surprised if emotions play into this as well. Let's not pretend that wikipedia is a machine with parts that move in a certain way according to rules. Why do you think schools don't get deleted as do businesses? Epthorn (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree completely that part of the keep on some recent articles about more recent deaths (Va Tech) is emotion ... perhaps even the Titanic list has something to do with the film. I do not know. Also, I did say I was reaching for straws on why those other articles were kept. I was not agreeing with their being kept. To answer your question, no, even if a professor or actor or child of Abraham Lincoln were on the Slocum, I would not advocate keeping the list. For the record, as Mandsford notes below, they are not lacking notability because they were "blue collar people, who did nothing notable during their lifetimes". There are many people who died, ultimately, in the name of safety improvements. I see lists like this as very slippery slopes. Am I to take it that some where there is a list of WTC victims being constructed? How about tsunami victims who died in the name of better tsunami detection? Lists of the dead in the San Francisco earthquake, whose tragic death led to better improvement in building code? How about the list of the dead from Hiroshima who stand as symbols of nuclear war. Instead of creating a slippery slope, it is safe to say that we may already be there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find your argument unconvincing. You have basically stated that you are against all lists of victims, and have deemed others' votes as being of less value by saying they were based on emotion rather than sound rationale or precedent. But then you have gone on to ignore the two consensus Keeps in saying lists of victims are bad in general. This seems like a personal preference rather than a decision grounded in precedent. What remains true is that a list of victims has been consensus Kept twice. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 19:06Z
  • Comment. It's really more a question of assuming good faith and extending to you the courtesy of waiting to hear your reasoning. Now I have, I am more comfortable with my recommendation of speedy G4. This is without a doubt "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". I am sympathetic to your idea that consensus may have changed and don't doubt you had the best of intentions, but we do have an ancillary process for proposing that pages be restored under such circumstances. I agree with Deor above that your adminship status should have no bearing on the case, but the fact is that it already has: if not for my presumption that you had worked within policy, I would have deleted it when I encountered the speedy tag per the guidelines at WP:CSD. Bureaucracy sometimes exists for a reason, and in this case it serves a purpose to ensure that all Wikipedians have equal status and that admins—aside from as necessary to ensure core policies are followed—do not have greater authority in forming article content than anybody else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a perfectly reasonable point that may have gotten lost in the shuffle... Epthorn (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brian0918 If you wish to question my judgement, that is your choice. Now you have made a backhanded accusation that I am labeling others' choices as "less worthy". I consider your statements as bullying, and having dealt with bullies here before, I will not involve myself with them again. I am leaving this debate rather than continue down a road which appears to have become one about personality rather than content. I have stated my stance, and believe this article should be deleted. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MEMORIAL does not apply to this, any more than listing Crispus Attucks in an article about the Boston Massacre would. The bar against memorials is explained as follows: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Given that the victims of the 1904 disaster are not remembered, fondly or otherwise, their notability is part of the historical data of a notable disaster. I'm sure there will be snobs out there who say, "these were blue collar people, who did nothing notable during their lifetimes". The evolution of safety is at the expense of unfortunate victims. Notability is not limited to people who happened to live in the 21st century. Mandsford (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we list all those people who died in automobile accidents before seatbelts were invented? Yes, a straw-man argument, I'll admit. Still, the disaster and not the people is the issue here. People should not be noted in an encyclopedia because they die, and only for that reason. Frankly, I would find it a disservice if someone listed me for such a reason. Note to self, include wikipedia stipulation in last will and testament...Epthorn (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a Great Car Crash of 1920, maybe. Automobile accidents in general, no. We are talking about historical events capable of having their own articles. The victims are part of the details of the historical event. Mentioning such victims is useful for historical and genealogical purposes. Whether discussions of historical events should include such specific details is a matter of opinion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-10 19:29Z
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. It is incorrect to claim that Wikipedia policy for keeping all victim lists is established by the two precedents cited. Mentioning the number and general characteristics of the victims suffices for historical purposes. A telephone-book like list of names serves no purpose. Millions of people died in airplane crashes, plagues, wars, steamboat explosions, famines, typhoons, earthquakes, and other mass casualty events. Most such lists of dead people have been deleted in AFDs. For the Virginia Tech victim list, the summary on the article's talk page says "The result of the discussion was Keep - No Consensus for deletion" The Columbine article AFD summary on the article's talk page says "This article was nominated for deletion on 18/4/2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus." It takes more than "No consensus" to establish a policy of keeping victim lists for otherwise non-notable people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps such victim lists could be trans-wikied to Wikisource. Then descendants of the unfortunate dead could have the pleasure of looking up their ancestors. But Wikipedia is not a genealogical database of non-notable people. Edison (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, nothing to merge, no "logical" search term. Fram (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Article offers only bits of lyric and possible interpretation. DurinsBane87 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - Merge with Toxicity (album) as per WP:music. When the song is not notable enough (as G search seems to indicate, it gets put into the album article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't contain any useful informationOlliyeah (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability; no references to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and note that merge and delete is not with the GFDL license. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmy (song)[edit]

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

Not-notable, article is a partial interpretation. DurinsBane87 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal rumble drinking game[edit]

Royal rumble drinking game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Specific drinking games are not generally notable, and for one like this, no description of the rules is going to be authoritative. While I can find other references to this game using Google, they don't show the same rules. Bovlb (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is unencylopedic for the same reasons:

Family Guy Drinking Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was Delete, I couldn't find any place to put the content (All Apologies is about the song, not the single). -- lucasbfr talk 03:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moist Vagina[edit]

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

Non-notable song. I guess this'll be kept, though, because there's an incredible WP:BIAS towards Nirvana. I mean - this is an insignificant B-side. Not notable as a standalone article. Should I go create Berkshire Poppies by Traffic? I could, but with the bias that exists towards bigger groups, cruft towards them is more likely to remain.h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to add one more thing since you specifically mentioned WP:BIAS. That page specifically says, "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." So I wouldn't use that argument. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as copyvio. CitiCat ♫ 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamicos[edit]

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

This article is about a band from Trinidad and Tobago that reportedly won first prize in a competition. That's nice, but the tone of the article seems very inappropriate, and the number and format of the external links suggests a conflict of interest. If the band is notable, keep the article, but at minimum it will need a strong rewrite. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unless the "National Parang Association of Trinidad & Tobago Annual Competition" is a major competition. If it is, it needs to be sourced, and thus would meet criteria 9 here. Otherwise, not notable, delete. - Rjd0060 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't look like it has notability Andante1980 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the competition they were in doesn't seem notable. The National Parang Association has been around for 26 years and yet I can't find a single reliable source about it, just trivial mentions of bands that have participated in it. "Asociación de Parang", the Spanish translation, gets nothing either. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:MUSIC. Sources for a Trinidad and Tobago-based band may be more difficult to find than for a band based in the U.S. or U.K., but this band's songwriting members did apparently win an award from the Copyright Organization of Trinidad and Tobago, which is the equivalent of BMI in the U.S. or PRS in the U.K. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the article doesn't assert notability and not verifiable in any case. --Lockley (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a COTT award is an assertion of notability (per Metropolitian). The National Parang is a major competition (see [57], which is a search of one of the three national newspapers). Parang is considered a national artform in Trinidad. So I think the band is notable enough for an article, but it's a copyvio of this page. So keep with a complete re-write (I'll do the re-write if consensus is to keep the article). Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evisum[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion per some concerns raised on the administrator's noticeboard. For those who don't want to dig through AN, the short version is that this page, along with a number of other pages related to the Virtualology web site, appear to be part of a spam campaign. Beyond that, this site doesn't look all that notable on its own. Most of the references are to sites which merely link to Evisum or mention it in passing. The claim that Virtualology uses Evisum as its default search engine appears to be false - Evisum is a link farm, not a search engine; its search form simply links to a branded Google search page; moreover, typing text into the search form on virtualology.com doesn't bring up Evisum. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to AfD. --A. B. (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks spammy too. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also note strongly non-neutral tone, and seems to want to introduce new jargon neologisms: Evisum's mission is to become the premier "Education to Consumer" (E to C) site on the Internet. E to C gets F'd in A. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and a.b. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam, and rather obviously so. DGG (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing about the Evisum site itself that looks notable. As mentioned above, not much more than a link farm Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spammy Mbisanz (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Oxymoron83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) within seconds after tagging. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let 'Em Burn (band)[edit]

Let 'Em Burn (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable band. 2 demo released, planning to release album in the future DimaG (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Dchall1 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The article says plainly that the group is not notable yet. So tagged. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Barzegar[edit]

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

This seems to be a completely non-notable biography article, as covered by WP:VANITY. This was a contested prod so I'm listing it here. I recommend Speedy deletion as there is no assertion of notability (see WP:N) and clearly does not pass the requirement of reliable sources and verification or other WP:BIO standards.--Cailil talk 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deletealubin'. Coredesat 06:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schnoobalubin'[edit]

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

Non-notable made-up term Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletealubin' as non-notable unsourced neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since I'll look dumb if I just steal 10#Hammer's term. I actually think, personally, that this is a word worthy of note, being a concept that apparently has no other word for it; however, there's no evidence that any reliable sources feel the same, which is the standard for inclusion. Powers T 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced, neologism, made up one day, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gosh darned cute, but (see all of the above). Psinualways forgetsto sign 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect, but are you sure there's no term for it? I think there was a phrase that described this, and it may be instead turned into a redirect to that phrases page(if it has one)Sudoku424 (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Coredesat 06:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian "Non-Aryans"[edit]

Christian "Non-Aryans" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is most unclear. It might be spam or a book review. The author removed the PROD but did not add any more clarity to the article Gillyweed (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is one of those difficult to categorise ones. It is not clear what the article is about - the name is not good, hard to redirect it to something, etc. But this also means that it is almost impossible to improve or clean up. I think this is a remnant of a book report. So I think we should delete as non encyclopedic. Nothing to keep and the name is not great so the real article (if it exists under here somewhere) can be written anytime.Obina (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with Obina. This is a well-written mess, so it should not have been speedily deleted, but neither is the topic notable, and there is no way to verify quickly by way of a web search. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ´´´´ Worthwhile reading```The subject might be worthwhile to stay in that forum. However, it needs some polishing.
  • Delete. More or less a coatrack for a fringe theory. Greswik (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep error in opening. SkierRMH (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Forbs[edit]

This was started in error - I clicked on the wrong article, please speedy close as keep. — BillC talk 22:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_10&oldid=1116877642"