Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 15

< December 14	December 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Loyst[edit]

Individual students participating in model parliaments, volunteer cadet youth groups, or similar education/training-based organizations, aren't inherently notable. Nice to see young people interested in learning how their government works, and potentially serving their country and all, but mock elections and volunteer youth group activities generally have no real-world notability. Complete lack of independent/secondary reliable sources bears this out. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that this entry in the series (Justin Wollin/Chris Erl) ~~also~~additionally appears to have conflict of interest issues, as well. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in a youth parliament are not notable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Youth Parliament is not a mock election. It is a mirror of the Parliament of Canada decicated to the perspective of young Canadians. As such, the YPC is charged with representing youth to the Government of Canada, and the United Nations. Key players are indeed notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganLoyst (talk • contribs) 06:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— KeeganLoyst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails the politician section of WP:BIO, because the new YPC is not a legislative body. Fails the general criteria due to lack of independent press coverage. I'll grant just enough assertion of notability that I won't speedy-delete it, but this is not a notable subject. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. I'm a member of this organization (YPC) and can assure you that it is not, at this time, notable enough that its staff would be notable by affiliation. Perhaps in five years, but at this point, no secondary sources, no media results. Clear delete. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mock politician in a mock election for a mock parliament. It is a great program, but individual "politicians" are not notable. Especially as per WP:RS. Reso lute 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like a laufable individual but doesn't meet wiki's notability criteria -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 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.

Author requested speedy deletion. --Michael Greiner 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphoinositide phospholipase C[edit]

Essentially the article is a dwarf copy of Phospholipase C. Initially there was a suggestion for the content to be merged, however, after examining this article there appears to be nothing of value. Merely gives alternate names for the enzyme in question and lists a host of unspecified signaling systems. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editing using the editing tools that even editors without accounts have. An administrator hitting a delete button is not required. Article merger of duplicate articles does not involve AFD, or deletion, at any stage of the process. And the process is not changed by how much overlap there is between the articles. Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, the AfD process is elastic where users use their judgment whether to nominate an article. You aren't citing policy, you're citing guidelines. Anyway, I've already considered all of that. With that in mind, how exactly would ordinary editing help in this instance? The entries are entirely identical so that is out of the question. Merging IS an option, but there is virtually nothing to merge. A redirect as per duplicate articles? Perhaps, but I find it highly unlikely that a casual editor or scientist would type Phosphoinositide phospholipase C. Besides, there is already a disambiguation page for Phospholipase linking to Phospholipase C. The article is essentially junk, not in the sense that it isn't notable, but because there isn't anything one could actually DO to improve it. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. This is sort of a gray area. Mergers do not always go smoothly and it can be helpful to seek consensus, and when you have esoteric topics so much the better. That said, I'll have to look closely at both articles to see if I have anything useful to say. But I don't object to the occasional problematic merger showing up on AFD (versus, say, RFC). --Dhartung | Talk 04:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enzyme classes are inherently notable and verifiable. These EC articles are eagerly awaited by the MCB community. --Arcadian (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course they are notable and verifiable. That is not the issue here. There are other criteria to consider for AfD. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole author of this article, I've taken the liberty of merging my material into phospholipase C, which is indeed the same enzyme family. However, strictly speaking, it is only one of at least four different phospholipase C enzyme families. I've created a a disambiguation page and added a header to phospholipase C to clarify that. The page has been blanked and I've asked for a speedy delete as sole author. Willow (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, consolidation was possible, see even I overlooked that. Nice merging. Wisdom89 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now tagged for speedy deletion. As the merger is complete, isn't better to redirect to Phospholipase C? This will close a gap in List of EC numbers (EC 3). --Banus (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to waffle on this, but Banus' suggestion of a redirect seems best, as I think everyone will agree. I'd forgotten about our page listing all the EC numbers, so I re-created the page as a redirect. Thank you to the admins who swiftly deleted the page at my request, and I apologize for bothering you when it wasn't needed. Willow (talk) 16:46, 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 delete all. Redirect at your pleasure. Kurykh 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Betty (character) et al[edit]

Fictional character; article is 100% in-universe content, no assertion of real-world notability, no sources other than the TV show's website Stormie (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Same deal, other characters from same show. --Stormie (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atomic Betty; it looks like the info has already been merged. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I don't believe consensus actively exists on things like this. Wait until latest meta-discussions finish. Hobit (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete for now - not notable. --Jack Merridew 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These articles are uncyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect. List of characters in Atomic Betty is already doing a fine job. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect all to the list. No evidence of any substatial outside-of-the-show references. Thus, for this reason, they lack the notability as stand alone articles. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:40, 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) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akua Ofosuhene[edit]

This article was created by Akua1969 (talk · contribs), presumably the article's subject. She doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete n-notable. Google search only shows 59 hits. Chris! _ct 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:52, 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 G7 - only author has blanked the page. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy from boston[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There is a claim to notability in the article, in the subject appearing on Fox News Channel. I'm moving this to AFD. No opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are an infinite number of blogs on the web, some of which are featured on news programmes from time to time, but there doesn't seem to be anything outstanding about this one. Brett Leaford (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this guy appears on Fox News, that doesn't mean he is notable. As a matter of fact, many non-notable people appear on Fox News. And even if he is notable, it is nearly impossible to find an independent reliable source for this person. Chris! _ct 23:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7 - the author is the only person to have made any edits and [s]he has now blanked the page [1] nancy ^(talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete tagged as CSD#G7. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 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. east.718 at 08:24, December 22, 2007

Distinguished AryaVysyas[edit]

Contested PROD. This list will be hopelessly POV and a magnet for vanity. Who decides who is distinguished? Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:List and could be better handled with categories Gillyweed (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a hopeless POV list, per nom Chris! _ct 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it could be merged with the caste article,and follow more closely the "distinguished" list seen for other castes.--12.72.151.154 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable AryaVysyas is more acceptable. A good cat of this would be a good basis. Victuallers (talk) 09:28, 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 delete. Eighteen months ago, at its last AfD, the article looked like this. The only thing that really changed since then is the addition of a table and the addition of raw info. The article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and its direction (if there is one) doesn't look good. Singu larity 07:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of VJ software[edit]

Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of several "List of ... software" pages being AfD'd since they all amount to little more then a list of links with no inclusion criteria other then their purporting to be "... software". 68.39.174.238 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a easy way to get a full listing of specific software. I find it usefull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.77.154 (talk) 22:17, 11 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, Davewild (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory, it's had 18 months since the last AFD to be hammered into something other than a depository for ELs, get rid. Someone another (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is great. Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.228.153 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding VJ software is difficult as it is often obscure. Seems reasonable to keep this list here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeader3 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 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. east.718 at 08:25, December 22, 2007

Tipping by region[edit]

Was created as a fork from Tip. Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Most content unreferenced or poor quality references. Barrylb (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Seems like something more befitting of a travel brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Egdirf (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of notability and sources. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is being over-interpreted - info is equally useful to natives, economists and sociologists. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't get too excited by looking at the references section and seeing "lots" of sources. When you actually look at the sources they are poor quality. For example the article at the Sydney Morning Herald is simple quoting a website tipping.org which I wouldn't say is a reliable source. Also look at how many statements are not backed up by any references. Not sure what you mean by "lots of notability". Barrylb (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The quality of sources will not be improved by deletion. As ever, AFD is not cleanup. I am confident that there are good quality sources. For example, some tax authorities have official policies about this and so there will be tax codes and case law. And, as this affects millions of workers and consumers, the notability seems evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As creator of the fork, I was hoping we could give it some time add additional sources and remove any dubious or unverified information. Perhaps one day, if this article was polished up to an acceptable state, it could be reincorporated into the main Tip article. If after, say, a few months no improvement seemed forthcoming, I would support its deletion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wanted the main article to discuss the subject, why fork a new article in the first place? Why not simply improve the main article itself, removing unverifiable or badly sourced content and replacing it with properly sourced good content? The way to fix bad content is not to sweep it under the rug by hiving off separate articles. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles for the loop that that causes. The way to fix bad content is to clean it up where it stands, mercilessly wielding the swords of Verifiability and No original research. Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear what you're saying. Being a very lazy and unproductive editor--and seeing the same tendencies in many others--I often have very low expectations that a certain problematic sections will eventually be made presentable. In my mind, I calculated a 7.8% chance that this content would ever be salvaged, but I certainly didn't want to do the thorough and tedious salvaging myself and didn't expect anyone else to do so in the near future. The section was becoming a bloated eyesore on the tip article, so I boldly took it out. I moved it here just in case someone more industrious than I wants to fix it. If so, great--but if not, I didn't want it hanging about a moderately high-traffica article causing clutter indefinitely. I don't expect you to approve of this rather pessimistic editing philosophy, but it does help keep crap out of articles, to some degree.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although Merge to "Tip" would be just as good an option). The customs for rewarding service are just as much a part of culture as other forms of etiquette Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are arguing Keep because it is a notable subject, that is not in dispute. Barrylb (talk) 05:21, 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 --JForget 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Prosperity[edit]

Self-sourced article on a political pressure group. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No vote just yet, but it certainly sounds like they'd be notable if the claims in the article could be reliably sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're all over Google News Archive thus sourceable. They're relatively new so don't have the name recognition of e.g. the Club for Growth, but they are out there on things like TABOR at the national and state level. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 6 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, Pastordavid (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dhartung, I think it is a notable orginization, and also gets many hits on Google news. STORMTRACKER 94 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I may not like them, but notable. Hobit (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. With branches in 20+ US states, they have (albeit relatively new) clout and certainly are a "player" in the US political scene. (If the assertions in the article are true - that's a lot of prez candidates to show up for any debate). Seem notable, but I'd love to see sources that verifiably tell us about them (not just press releases and the org's homepage.). I'm looking now... Keeper | 76 21:47, 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 Delete without prejudice (talk page kept) to re-creation should notability be established. A person who runs for office and fails to be elected may be otherwise notable (the best example in recent American history might be Ross Perot). As the evidence currently stands, Shane Sklar does not fall into that category; should his notability be established in relation to Ron Paul, the question would need to be asked "should Shane Sklar have an article or should he be relegated to a section of the article on Ron Paul?" on the basis of independent vs. inextricably dependent notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Sklar[edit]

Unnotable "politician" that never won any office, fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what part of WP:BIO does it fail? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians:

Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[9] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[10] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, In regard to the "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone." part of the policy, I believe the fundraiser held in his honour by Nancy Pelosi and his crazy "hold defence contractors accountable for the Iraq War" conspiracy scheme could be used as an argument for notability. But on the other hand don't stand up very up well, he reminds me of John McDonnell in the UK. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that, somehow God help us, John ""It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" McDonnell managed to get elected as an M.P. While that says little for the intelligence of his constituents, that's why he's notable. Simply believing in ludicrous things is no mark of notability. Nick mallory (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, yea I realise now, McDonnell was actually elected MP. On a side note what did you mean by the "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" bit? I thought McDonnell had plans to pull straight out of Iraq if he won the leadership? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell loves the IRA [2]. They're the people he was lionising. According to him the IRA are heroes. He wants to surrender to Al Quada as well of course. My keyboard doesn't have enough letters to express what I think about him. Nick mallory (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! I did not know that! Myself personally, I've never liked him since I saw him do an interview with Jon Snow on the Channel 4 news, and he said that the 1st thing he'd do if he got in to power would be to instantly pull the troops out of Iraq regardless of the consequences. Don't get your hopes up though, I've desperately searched for a source of this for ages, I think at one point I even worked out what day it was broadcast on. Don't suppose anybody can help? Ryan4314 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed candidates don't get articles, that's been estabished many times before. Nick mallory (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix -- all it took was 30 seconds Google News' archive search to turn up 160 press mentions. Consider also that as Ron Paul's presidential campaign continues picking up steam, this guy's name will surface more often as Paul's old opponent. When people read iRon Paul's bio in a magazine, they may try to look up more info about Sklar. --A. B. ^(talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Or they may just shake their heads and wonder what a small band of zealots on the internet are playing at. The fact that this loony lost to another one does not make him notable. Nick mallory (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would another a person who failed to win a Congressional election churn up less Ghits? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question. I'd say that those Google News hits are not related to Ron Paul's recent surge in the primaries from nobody status just a month ago. That's because only one is from 2007; the rest pre-date this primary season. I'm not saying his defeat to Ron Paul makes him notable -- just that I think there will be some demand for info on this person from our readers if Paul continues to gain traction. "Reader interest" is not a recognized criterion at all but still I think it's worth bearing in mind. For me, the deciding factor is the extensive non-trivial coverage. --A. B. ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; failed candidates CAN get articles, obviously, and elected politicians may not get them. This one, however, fails to establish notability. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL in regards to a possible future relevance coming from Ron Paul- even IF this occurs (highly dubious), information would belong on Ron Paul's page, not his failed opponent. Epthorn (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Losing candidates for major national--level office may or may not be notable, but in this special case he probably is regardless of the general practice.. There does seem to be enough coverage, though it does seem somewhat local and repetitive.DGG (talk) 09:29, 9 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, CitiCat^♫ 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never held office. Egdirf (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable unless someome can come up with sources to prove otherwise. Being a candidate is not enough, nor are trivial mentions in stories about the election or opponent. Nuttah (talk) 11:00, 22 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 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brightlights[edit]

Article about a non-notable band which has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. Have had one single in UK charts, but nothing else of notability. Egdirf (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. STORMTRACKER 94 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be non notable. Brett Leaford (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The band has at least 5 reliable sources listed in the article. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The band also won the 'road to V' competition and thus appeared at a major music festival making them notable according to WP:MUSIC. This is all stated and sourced very clearly in the article if you're going to comment on a afd at least read the article in question first. --Neon white (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ^Dlae│_here 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is well sourced and the references clearly highlight the significance of the band. This page has been deleted before and I have made a serious effort at sourcing and writing this present one. Tom Green (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have had a top ten hit and the article is well sourced. Gene Mort (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An excellent article RowanMartin (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian mention convinces me they're worth keeping. --Lockley (talk) 07:49, 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 Merge→Josh Groban: Prior to closure, the article had been redirected-without-merger to Josh Groban. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grobanite[edit]

Insufficient content and verifiability to become a good article. It was suggested for AfD at Talk:Josh Groban (sorry if this nomination was categorized incorrectly). I80and (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Josh Groban. There are a fwe mentions out there so it's a plausible search term but hardly seems significant enough, nor would it be easily defined. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dhartung STORMTRACKER 94 21:41, 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. — Scientizzle 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheiks of Sheba[edit]

Contested speedy. Non-notable band. The band is an independent band not signed by an established major label or well-known indie label. The sources provided are dubious at best, including one that is obviously a video interview conducted by the author of this article, [User:Goldwingedlion]], which itself violates original research policies. (The video is hosted on goldwingedlion.com.) Moreover, the CDfreedom listing (which is linkspam) is apparently a listing by "goldwingedlion" according to the URL. It appears that, given these circumstances and the apparent conflict of interest, that this article and the companion Giuseppe Cotteli are really spam that the author tried to pass off as a legitimate article. Even if there were no COI/spam issues, the band would still not meet WP:BAND. No charted songs, no signing by a major label or recognized indie label, nothing more than trivial independent coverage. It's gotta go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Egdirf (talk) 21:57, 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. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mito Umeta[edit]

Previously prodded and deleted and subsequently recreated by User:Kitia, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1975, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no content, fails WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as recreation of deleted content, otherwise strong delete per nom as non-notable (no substantive coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:BIO). The subject of the article is already listed in the article oldest people, which is quite sufficient unless substantive coverage becomes available to demonstrate notability and to allow and article to consist of more than commentary about a person's position in a list. Given the nominator's deatailed searches, that seems unlikely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously G4 doesn't apply here, because this was deleted via WP:PROD. Its recreation should be considered a challenge to the prod. Mango juice^talk 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so I have struck out the speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe that the subject is notable, and would welcome a substantive article on her. But this isn't it, and it seems unlikely to ever happen. This mini-stub is not worth keeping. Matchups (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doomed to be an unnessecary bare bones article. Supercentenarians like her are for lists only, not articles. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 04:24, 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 delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National University of Ireland, Galway YFG[edit]

Local branch. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIT.YPDS. Soman (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local, fails WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. STORMTRACKER 94 21:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with student activities section of National University of Ireland and then redirect to that page. Brett Leaford (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. As per the reasoning for the DIT.YPDS discussion below. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Guliolopez (talk) 01:54, 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. Kurykh 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIT.YPDS[edit]

Generally, we don't have separate articles for local branches of political parties and youth wings. This type of presentation is better adapted for facebook or myspace. Soman (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very prominant branch with lots of factual information contained in the information and it is no different to the following page from a rival local branch of a youth party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.34.159 (talk • contribs) so, assumably, if this article is to be deleted, which I would certainly protest because I think it is relevant, then surely the above link would also be deleted because it is the exact same category and idea, just with defferent names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 (talk • contribs)

Comment: My take on this is that, with the exception of parties with a clear federal character (like Category:Democratic_Party_(United_States)_by_state), there should not be articles on individual local/district organization of a party or youth league. If there is something of extraordinary notability, that should be included in the article on the main organization itself. --Soman (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, whilst this article may be of no interest to you, it may be of interest to people interested in Irish politics/youth politics. And surely like will be treated with like, so if this page is is deleted with reason then surely the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG will also be delted? - Just to make sure wikipedia is fair and balanced in its directives on Irish politics/youth politics. However the above similar page has existed for quite some time without protest and I'm sure there are other pages just like it around, so I don't see don't what the problem is with making a similar page for a different party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 (talk • contribs)

Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, very little other stuff exists in this case, apart from these two articles. In general, and in practice, local branches orcumanns of Irish political parties, either general or youth branches, don't have individual articles. This AFD or this one and others like it spring to mind.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. It is expected that political parties will have local branches; we can't possibly document all of them. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Flowerpotman. Guliolopez (talk) 01:56, 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. Kurykh 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of released PAL PS2 Games[edit]

Seems redundant, since we have already List of PlayStation 2 games with PAL releases marked. Mika1h (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Mika1h (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list of PS2 games like this one already exists, making the article up for deletion redundant. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell which of the games in List of PlayStation 2 games have PAL releases. Help? Hobit (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The European flag corresponds to PAL releases. --Mika1h (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:27, 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Fleming[edit]

Vanity article about self-published musician. This article offers no assertion of notability and is of questionable veracity. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All references point to sites where Fleming's work can be bought. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb: It's fine if you delete the links to where the artist's music can be purchased, but that does not negate the fact that the artist is a notable musician in the relevant genre. Omotorwayo (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anetode: I disagree and believe there is sufficient evidence and record sales history, which speaks to the artist's importance in musical genres mentioned. The page has already been confirmed as notable twice in the past. Omotorwayo (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anetode: Furthermore, given that the artist is currently on the German label (http://suburbantrash.c8.com/), which is not the only label he has released music on, I don't see how he is "self-published." Omotorwayo (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Co.Ad.Audio when I mentioned "self-published". The article currently doesn't mention record sales in any way, except for a link to amazon which gives a sales rank of #669,245 for an EP. The artist's importance in musical genres isn't really mentioned either, and there's an alarming lack of any reliable sources to back up any claims. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that he started his own label doesn't negate the fact that his music is distributed on other labels. He had music released as recently as 2007 on Resist Music in the UK. Fleming's song is used as an introduction track on a CD compiled by a UK DJ, which also asserts popularity of the artist (see link for more details). Omotorwayo (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I put this vanity article up for speedy deletion awhile ago but evidently the assertion of a "European tour" in the article disqualified it. In my mind there is no worth evident aside from self promotion. I think it's worth noting that the creator & sole editor has very few contributions other than this article [8] which to me hints at a personal motivation & involvement. - Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcmaeonid: Adherence to WP:MUSIC is sufficient to assert the article's notability. Also, adding multiple pages as opposed to one should not make a difference as to whether or not the article is notable. Omotorwayo (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, also is written like an ad and external links all link to purchace areas. STORMTRACKER 94 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any links that have music available for purchase were put to show reviews written by avid fans of the artist, but I'm fine with their removal if an administrator deems it necessary. Omotorwayo (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Also, I'm of the belief that a record label's "release history," is one of the best ways to prove that an artist has sold music commercially on a notable scale. Omotorwayo (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC..--Dchall1 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dchall1: Please provide an explanation as to how the article violates WP:MUSIC to support your delete assertion. Omotorwayo (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple citations, including the Resist Music CD reference and a video recording from Russia, in 2006, with music performed by Cristian Fleming AKA Unit. Omotorwayo (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published sources are hardly reliable enough. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 08:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... so three record labels run by other people are self-sourced? I follow that logic 100%!

at this point i could care less if the page gets deleted because everyone here has proven to be so disgustingly ignorant of IDM/Electronic music that having a page on here would be bad for the artist's image.

Keep - The article clearly states that the artist has engaged in an international tour, and therefore passes WP:MUSIC. - Philippe | Talk 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite the numerous references in the article, I see one that would be considered a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 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 delete. DS (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rhyde Rhodes[edit]

I'm going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "Richard Rhyde Rhodes" or "Richard Rhodes" that has any of the traits claimed by this article (there is plenty on this notable Richard Rhodes, but it is not the same person as this article). If he was on the Forbes 400 in 1992, for example, that should come up very quickly with a Google search, but I cannot seem to find anything on that, or anything else in this article, hence it seems to fail WP:V. If someone can provide sources, I would probably withdraw the nomination because he does seem to have at least some claim to notability (if he is indeed real). Cheers, CP 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Mr. Rhodes doesn't seem to come up in any of the numerous potted histories of Intel. Additionally, the creator's sole other (surviving?) edit is an unsourced and subsequently reverted addition to Henry B. Steagall. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a hoax. No ghits. STORMTRACKER 94 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Google sources except this article. Joshdboz (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax per discussion above, and per WP:BLP because it consists solely of unreferenced material on a possibly living person. WP:V is policy, not a guideline, and it is quite clear that it is up to an editor who adds material to provide the sources to justify its inclusion.
As an aside, I regret the tendency at AfD to treat that requirement as if it were inverted, requiring other editors to spend a lot of time trying to second-guess the editor who created the article. The edit box for a new article says in bold print "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted"; it does not say "don't worry about referencing article, because other editors will devote huge amounts of time to trying to assess whether there were some sources you could have used or whether this is just something you made up".</rant> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellish science fiction[edit]

While the article is an interesting read, ultimately it appears to be original research. The term "Hellish science fiction" garners exactly one google hit while ""Lovecraftian science fiction" gets ten unique hits. With no references at all, I'm not sure this will ever be anything more than original research as the term just plain doesn't appear to be widespread. IrishGuy ^talk 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very nice, but still, original research. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 11 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced and Original Research. Tiddly-Tom 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Science Fiction Horror. See the Event Horizon (film) article, for example, which describes the film in these terms. Or Category:Science fiction horror films. For a source, there is the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which has an article on Horror in SF covering this ground. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. per nom Chris! _ct 23:27, 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. east.718 at 08:27, December 22, 2007

Sevii Islands[edit]

The article has no references to establish notability per WP:FICTION, and thus without reliable sources per WP:RS. It has no information other than in-universe plot repetition derived from the plot sections of the Pokemon game articles, so it is also entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's well-written but unreferenced and probably not notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:21, 11 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pokémon Fire Red and Leaf Green Will ^(talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Pokemon franchise.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:37, 21 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) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimusica[edit]

About someone's music class project that involves writing a piece of music via a Wiki. Not notable right now. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable web content per WP:WEB. No references, no independent notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:21, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, non-notable. As the originator blanked the page on 12 Dec, I'd think it could be speedied as G7. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Arts[edit]

Contested PROD. No asserted out-of-universe notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - belongs in an article of wider scope if anything. Barrylb (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen all i did was turn a red link blue, So if the link turns red again i as a user must turn it blue. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, would you be happy if we delete the red links and instead explain what they mean in the article (Phantasy Star Universe: Ambition of the Illuminus) ? Barrylb (talk) 14:06, 11 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Wait for latest meta discussions to get consensus on fancruft. Hobit (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea what this article is talking about. It seems to be detailing something very specific with no references. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and allow to burn-up on re-entry. what rubbish. oh, per "nom" - NN. --Jack Merridew 10:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- lol. Delete I agree. Eusebeus (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're special attacks in a video game, nothing that can't be handled within the game's article. Someone another (talk) 17:45, 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 delete. east.718 at 08:29, December 22, 2007

Shaair + func[edit]

It is completely unsourced, some of the text seems to have been copied/pasted with sentences moved around from other sites(such as the band's myspace) and whether the article asserts notability is questionable. AngelOfSadness talk 14:51, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Tour 2004[edit]

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 02:40:55

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references!!! Olliyeah (talk) 14:18, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a date, by date list of a tour that happened three years ago. Sorry, this doesn't have encyclopedic value.-- danntm ^T _C 22:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Under My Skin again like her previous three afd's on other tours, Wikipedia is not the place for concert promotions. --JForget 00:23, 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 without prejudice to recreation if at least one solid source can be uncovered; the current ones just don't cut it. BLACKKITE 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avriri[edit]

A non-notable group. Most of the sources are self-published. The only exceptions are Haaretz and YNet - these are well-established Israeli news sources, but the cited articles do not mention Avriri, but only certain persons which this page claims to be members of Avriri. Note - Googling for Avriri or the Hebrew name אוורירי is useless, because it's a common Hebrew word which ~~meaning~~ means something like "full with air" or "refreshing". You may try searching for אוורירי קמר (Avriri Kamer), but you won't find much more than Kamer's blogs. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not much, but enough to make it notable and verifiable bt far. Marina T. (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as noted in External Links of the article the group and\or manifesto was mentioned in Haaretz [9], Walla [10] and Nana [11]. Marina T. (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and here [12] in english from YNET. Marina T. (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only article that actually mentions Avriri is the article from Nana that discusses a free of charge evening of Avriri films in a pub. In my opinion it is far from enough to establish notability.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean that there should be an article here about every drop-out cinema student that shows his home movies to his friends in a pub, even if his friends happen to work in popular newspapers. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - valid group, has a solid manifesto that was published in various cinema papers, links are not internal. Marina T. (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in Category:Movements in cinema there are similar groups, manifesto alone make it notable, as long as the manifesto was discussed and reviewed in leading journals. Marina T. (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was it? If you can provide a couple of convincing citations, i will withdraw this AfD. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I received a note on my talkpage directing me to this AfD. (Canvassing?) I recuse myself from the discussion because of this. NF24^{(radio me!)} 20:46, 14 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep pending sources I can't find anything on Google, but the hits seem mildly common. --Shark face 217 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable unless some independent, reliable sources that actually establish notability of Avriri are provided. Nuttah (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but would change my position with one convincing source. Cool Hand Luke 10:25, 23 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. Singu larity 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sartorius (family)[edit]

I was uncomfortable speedy deleting this under CSD A7, as it might be read to contain a weak of assertion of notability. Still, I see no real evidence of this supposedly scholarly family having done anything encyclopedic. Delete for failing WP:BIO. Xoloz (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google search shows the ref. exists and points to discussion, but desperately needs more WP:RS. JJL (talk) 03:51, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based solely on the article and lone source, I fail to see the notability as defined by WP:BIO. This subject may in fact be notable, but not at the moment. Manderson198 (sprech) 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have some Sartoriuses in the database, and a Google search reveals a 1900 book on Google Books describing a family of animal painters, but generally it's individuals who are notable enough to deserve entries, not family names. This should shrink to a diambig at best. --Lockley (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete family doesn't stand out among others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 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 Redirect. Xoloz (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mp4 23[edit]

The Reason I have put this article up for deleting is that it is incorrectly named, is should be Mclaren MP4-23 NOT Mp4 23, also if you type in McLaren MP4-23 is redirects to Team McLaren's page, which is the right thing to do as the car has not even been launched yet. The MP4-23 will be Team McLaren 2008 car. To give you an idea of what a article should look like, here is this years car McLaren MP4-22.

Neil Mundy (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to McLaren. This nomination seems instead to be a request for a page move; but I'm not certain that individual vehicles driven by the McLaren racing team are notable enough to be subjects of articles in themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are justified articles have a look at McLaren MP4-22 there is an article for each teams car in F1, but this should be deleted because there is nothing to it and it is named wrong, when the car is launched in January and done it's first race in March then the article will start to flow. However, it should be created under McLaren MP4-23 and the measure is already in place with a redirect to Team McLaren. Neil Mundy (talk) 16:01, 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, Caknuck (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a simple and straightforward redirect- either to McLaren MP4-23 as a new article or to Team McLaren. If it's under the wrong title, move it to the new one and be done with it. Grutness...wha? 20:07, 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. Kurykh 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Kastiel[edit]

This guy is a bit of a bohemian and a bit of a real-estate agent, and non-notable at either of these things. Google search for "Alon Kastiel" in English yields mostly Wikipedia clones, thanks to this article's inclusion in the Real estate category. The "BBC Interview" link is not really an interview with Kastiel, but an article about Israeli elections, which passingly mentions the guy. The only substantial source about Kastiel in English is this article in Haaretz, which actually discusses pretty serious matters of Israeli wars, but has very little to do with this article and still doesn't establish notability of the person (the whole point of that article is that Kastiel is not unique). Searching in Hebrew for "אלון קסטיאל" yields results which are only marginally more substantial: they talk about a few lofts that he bought and sold and a few parties that he threw in them - mostly gossip-y material. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as written and cited, insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete real estate mogul and art collector and not notable in either realm. Being rich ≠ being notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 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 Speedy delete G7 (blanked by only editor) by Snowolf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beale and the Fowler Family[edit]

Deletion nomination Characters from a fictional work don't merit their own article unless independent notability can be established. I see no where where these characters are discussed in reliable sources, and the main article can deal with them just fine. See WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Beale family, duplicate article. (P.S. the characters are notable in their own right, however at WP:EE we are aware of the issues and are working on our articles so they follow the above guidelines.) ^anemone│_projectors 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. Lara❤Love 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 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. Kurykh 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard[edit]

Wholly unreferenced stub article on someone claimed to be the oldest man ever born in the USA, which is not a bad assertion of notability … but even if there wre some references to support that assertion, there would also need to be some substantial coverage in reliable sources for him to be notable per WP:BIO. I have searched for refs, but didn't expect to find much since he died in 1985: see Google books search, google news search 1, google news search 2 - the search is complicated by the two possible spellings of Matthew/Mathew and the presence of many other Mat(t)hew Beards, though Gnews did throw up two subscription-only hits in old local newspapers which may or may be relevant, but which in either case do not seem substantial.[13][14]
Meanwhile the article consists almost entirely of unsourced speculation about Beard's place in the longevity rankings. He is listed in List of the oldest people#List and in Oldest people#Oldest_men_ever_.28top_10.29, which is quite sufficient unless and until there is something substantive to write about him from reliable sources. There may be printed sources which are not available online, and if they are found then the article could of course be recreated at a later date if substantial coverage is found in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And then his case is questionable. Might not be 114. Neal (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything after its first "paragraph." --Thin boy 00 @962, i.e. 22:05, 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. Concerns about notability and the quality of sourcing were not met. east.718 at 08:33, December 22, 2007

Paul Lerner[edit]

Non-notable and no reliable sources.

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Article does not cite significant WP:RS. The two listed sources for biographical material are the "about the author" section from the two books that the subject has co-authored. Other links cited are:

the self published websites for the subject's own company
promotional blurbs from the book publisher's website (Wiley and Sons)
a link showing the book was translated into the co-author Poltorak's native Russian
a link to a non-critical "review" (essentially a factual summary of the contents) of the subject's book, published in a biannual law school electronic magazine [15]
a transcript, published on the subject's company website, of a 5-question interview by the Wall Street Reporter [16], which appears to be essentially a paid-PR website of "interviews" with corporate CEOs that does not meet WP:RS. Questions include "Silverstein: How do you plan to handle the rapid growth in the industry?" and "Silverstein: That's terrific. How can our audience find out more about your company?"
link to a set of powerpoint slides from a presentation by the author

In all, the article presents the subject as the secondary co-author of two books and four articles (linked to from the primary author Poltorak's web site), none of which are the subject of any independent critical reviews. It also tries to promote the subject as having argued a case in the CAFC that was cited in a single sentence in the MPEP, a publication thousands of pages long. Other biographical and career info does not distinguish the subject as deserving of an independent Wikipedia article -- just and an attorney, adjunct professor, and executive of a firm of unknown size.

This article has been fluffed up in an attempt to make the author appear notable, but on closer inspection this person does not meet WP:BIO and the article is not supported with reliable sources.

Emcee (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to me there has been plenty of time for evidence of independent coverage to be added to the article. I don't see evidence of sufficient notability here. Being a lawyer doesn't make him notable. Co-authoring a book doesn't make him notable. There are millions of people in the world in professional positions and millions who have written, or co-written publications. That can't be enough for an encyclopedia. If significant independent coverage could be added, that would make a difference.--Michig (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emcee. Non-notable enough to have an article. --Edcolins (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added an interview with CNNfn which together with the rest should suffice for WP:BIO. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, don't think so. A very short appearance as a talking head on a now-defunct cable financial news channel does not cut it. The news coverage needs to be about the SUBJECT of this Wikipedia article -- in other words, Paul Lerner -- not Paul Lerner's 30 seconds of fame talking to a layman reporter on the topic of the rudimentary basics of obtaining a patent. If there were any reliable sources on Paul Lerner with any substance, I'm sure you would have provided it by now. Emcee (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard disclosure for AfD: PinchasC is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Emcee (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless evidence of notability crops up. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per previous AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But perhaps add a bit more about this person in General Patent Corporation International. The company is reasonably notable, but this employee does not seem to be. --John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Be wary in your assessment of the notability of GPCI based on its Wikipedia article -- this one is also created and almost entirely written by the same (single) author, PinchasC, and appears to rely heavily on self-published or otherwise unreliable sources (the company's own website, Poltorak/Lerner publications, company press releases (possibly picked up in other media), etc. A quick Google will show you that the GPCI initals are not very prominently connected to General Patent Corporation International, the way they are with many other IP law firms (COJK for example). Nowhere have I seen any indication of how many people work for the company, or what attorneys they have on staff (as virtually all laws firms do -- listing attorney bios and specialties). All indications are that this is a two-person company with a website. Emcee (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's deal with that issue separately. I'd heard of GPC/GPCI before this article; they're reasonably well known in the patent field, because they've been involved in some high-profile cases. GPCI's head legal guy doesn't seem to be very notable on his own, though. --John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he seems to have written the standard books on the subject. DGG (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How have you ascertained that his two co-authored books are the "standard"? As mentioned, there are no independent analytical or critical reviews or other information cited that support your statement. Emcee (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough sources to meet WP:BIO. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and observation My first comment is that this is not a vote, it is a discussion -- meaning "Keep" or "Delete should be supported with arguments, hopefully that would address the grounds of the AfD. My observation (which admittedly may entirely be coincidence), is that 3 of the 4 "Keep" votes have come from users who spend most of their time on articles relating to Jewish topics (Jaygj, Yehoishophot Oliver, and the article's creator, PinchasC); the fourth appears to be an anti-deletionist when it comes to bios of academics. Emcee (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. It is hard to prove a negative - IANAL but I do have two close friends who are UK patent agents, and neither has ever heard of this man - he did not write any of the standard texts which are used in the UK (Bainbridge, White, Terrell et al.). I cannot comment on his notability inside the US, and whether it alone satisfies WP:BIO. Since patent law is itself a fairly narrow area, of interest to a small proportion of the population, I would have thought it very hard for any patent attorney to satisfy WP:BIO unless they had caused some major paradigm shift or were famous for something else. Magnate (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article appears heavily padded, but the parts that seem most like a claim of notability in it to me are the Zahn case and the two books. But we still have no evidence that those things actually are important, such as reviews of the books or articles about Zahn describing the importance of Lerner's role in paving new directions in intellectual property law. In the absence of such evidence, Lerner should be presumed non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 21 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. I was tempted to delete this, but it may be useful as a repository for many minor characters that currently have their own unnecessary articles (see the merge tags). However, it needs to be heavily cleaned up, all WP:OR excised, and trivial characters removed. A future AfD may take note of this close. BLACKKITE 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars villains[edit]

The title of this list is the first thing that's problematic: in addition to "minor" suggesting a lack of notability for these characters, "villain" is non-WP:NPOV; for the same reason various "Villain/hero in X franchise/text" have been deleted for lack of clear inclusion criteria, the boundaries of this list are vague -- for example, Yun in one plot path in the game he appears in heroically defends the player's character. Well, I'd call it heroic -- it's my own belief, not cited anywhere. The article has been tagged for additional references since January 2006, and most of the seven are two primary sources conveying just plot summary. Additionally, only one source has been added since May; the content is overwhelmingly plot summary and unverified original research. I realize some editors are touchy about deleting these lists of...; I point toward this AfD as precedent for similar removal (which didn't have the non-NPOV title issues). --EEMIV (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of lists to collect information on groups of individually non-notable plot elements is a well-used and well-justfied method of dealing with this sort of thing. If every Star Wars character were included in the same list, it would be unweildy; this list seems a valid size-fork from the main List of Star Wars characters. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perl Jayron32. There may exist better solutions than a size-fork, but deleting isn't one of them. Mdmkolbe (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These characters do not assert notability for inclusion. Lara❤Love 18:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the 3 merge requests on the article page it's clear this list acts as a useful repository for articles that really don't warrant their own page. If this list were to be deleted I fear a large number of these minor villians would be recreated as individual articles. Keeping this list is not an ideal solution by any means, but a reasonable compromise. RMHED (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim&Merge into a bigger list with a better chance to establish notability in some way, or reluctant delete. It seems that many of these characters are just included for the sake of completeness, not for weak notability. Like the nom, I understand if people want to keep the list like it is, but I find fan wikis (especially for Star Wars) are a much more suitable outlet for this kind of WP:PLOTty WP:ORish information. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RMHED Hobit (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual villains might be minor, but the concept of minor Star Wars villains isn't minor. Rray (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you substantiate that? Then create the article Star Wars villains - these characters don't inherit notability. Or cite whatever sources you know of that support the real-world notability of minor Star Wars character in this nearly-sourceless list. --EEMIV (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability, there is no reason to keep the article. This is not a vote, and voting keep and claiming notability without proving is not good enough to keep an article from deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long list of non-notable characters. Fails WP:Plot also full of original research. Ridernyc (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron32. This is just part of the main Star Wars article that has been forked out due to size and shouldn't be viewed in absolute isolation. Torc2 (talk) 20:47, 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 Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Junot[edit]

No sources, no explanation of notability, no claim or evidence the plays of this playwright have ever been published or performed, google finds no evidence notability. Weregerbil (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or Strong Delete per A7. I'd tag it, but the author already deprodded it (controversial speedy candidates go here instead). --Thin boy 00 @966, i.e. 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any independent coverage to establish notability. The article itself states that she's written 'only four' plays and they are 'rarely staged'. Not notable. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor has obviously put some effort in writing a long article. WP:GNP doesn't seem to be met regarding notability. Perhaps as more reliable sources report this person, notability will become more clear. The editor author should be aware that WP is often not trend setting but is an encyclopedia and a summary of what is already written. WP can tie multiple sources to form a great summary article and exceed the value of any other summary. However, it's not the trend setter in writing about subjects that haven't yet attained notability. If a reference can be found, perhaps an added sentence in the Theatre of France may be appropriate. Different wikipedias have different standards so French Wikipedia may (or may not) be a better venue. Archtransit (talk) 01:08, 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 delete. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Elsie Thornton[edit]

Not only is this a minor fictional character that doesn't warrant an article, the article is unsourced and unreferenced. MovieMadness (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Peyton Place from with it is linked. (Though I think this might one of those cases where it makes more sense for a non-notable topic to be its own article to avoid cluttering the main, notable article, but I don't think Wikipedia has a policy for that.) --Mdmkolbe (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merging with Peyton Place makes no sense, since far more substantial characters are not discussed at length. I believe delete is the best course of action. MovieMadness (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That may be true about Peyton_Place_(novel), but Peyton_Place_(film) lists and discusses (in their own articles) the other characters at similar length. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: The other characters who have their own articles were far more significant to the plot than this one was. MovieMadness (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. Maybe you are right, but without something or someone to back that up, such a claim is completely subjective, even if I agreed with you. The only indication one way or another that I could find that isn't OR was that according to IMDB that role was first billed. At least on the face of it, this indicates the role has a significance to the plot. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but a plot summary. Do not see need to redirect, how many people are ever going to search this term. Ridernyc (talk) 02:31, 22 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. — Scientizzle 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard feigenbaum[edit]

I don't believe the subject of this article meets notability criteria, but I wasn't quite sure enough for a PROD. He has written a book, but it doesn't seem to have done particularly well. The unsourced details in the article, especially in the "personal life" section, make me wonder if there's a WP:COI issue here. Joyous! | Talk 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Yahoo search turned up bupkis aside from Amazon and other sites advertising his book. Blueboy 96 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yes, there is (probably) a COI issue, look at the author's contribs! --Thin boy 00 @970, i.e. 22:17, 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 did not assert notability, in addition to COI, SOCK & other concerns. SkierRMH (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I & K Motors[edit]

Delete (as nom): Fails to assert notability, was CSD'd but contested by author. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - company's notability not established, seems like an advert to me --Mhking (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CSD A7 still applies to this version of the article: notability not established. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 No notability asserted that I can see. Possible WP:COI issues to boot--author's name is TheStephenator (talk · contribs), and the dealership is owned by a guy named Steve Innes. I suspect there's also some sockpuppetry going on with this article as well--Innes2k7 (talk · contribs) tried to add this company to List of Scottish companies.Blueboy 96 15:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he just admitted that he's a sock. Blueboy 96 15:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever plus subject fails WP:CORP —Travis ^talk 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is neither asserted nor present. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:00, 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. Cool Hand Luke 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownbagging[edit]

procedural nomination—article version at time of AFD Article nominated for PROD-deletion with rejection in October 2007, then re-PROD'd in December 2007. First PROD nominator stated: "UScentric slang word, un-encyclopedic". Second PROD nominator stated: "this is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I repeat my PROD nomination: this is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Blueboy 96 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has already been transwikied anyway. Although the tidbit about patent violation could be mentioned in an appropriate article. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per recent changes to the article. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The agricultural jargon of brown-bagging is important and controversial. I have added a book source although several of the "see also" sources seemed sufficient per WP:NEO. I split off the agricultural meaning to brownbagging (agriculture) and left brownbagging as a disambiguation page.--Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merely from looking at the article alone, I had no doubt that brownbagging (agriculture), which is where the nominated article now is, should be kept. (I looked at the cited sources, anyway. They support the article. I fully expected them to, given Dhartung's work in the past.) It's vastly better than it was. Well done.
Whether we need the new disambiguation at Brownbagging is debatable. It's really only disambiguating between the aforementioned and the concept of a packed lunch, whose article is a stub and wherein discussion of the sorts of places one takes a packed lunch to, and what one takes it in, obviously belong. A headnote disambiguation would have done just as well as a full disambiguation article. But I have no strong opinion on removing the full disambiguation article now that it exists. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the vote of confidence, Uncle G! Shoulders of giants &c. As for the dab page, I have just added the two (older) meanings of drinking alcohol in public or carrying it to a restaurant, and I'm working on a couple more. I wikilinked brownbag as well, which is currently PRODded but probably salvageable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written disabig page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly notable slang word. WP is not censored, nor is any meaning of this term so objectionable as to be offensive to many persons. This term is not so new as to be a Neologism. Good sources can be found easily. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks fine to me. GlassCobra 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My initial reaction was sceptical, never having heard the word, but having looked at the article I think it is OK. Springnuts (talk) 18:30, 21 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 Irishguy. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Edom[edit]

non-notable music producer. The Triple J Unearthed dance charts are for "up-and-coming" artists and do not in my mind confer notability. No secondary sources or references, and a quick Google search on "Gavin Edom" reveals only two pages other than Wikipedia. As an aside, most of the work on this article has been done by User:Gavin Edom, which adds a dash of WP:COI to the whole matter. Lankiveil (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lankiveil, borders on an A7 speedy. Blueboy 96 14:34, 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 --JForget 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SimWhiteHouse[edit]

Contested prod about a computer game that Google only finds mentioned on Wikipedia.[17] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Allen3 ^talk 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "It is a fictional game". No notability demonstrated, no sources, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - It took me awhile to figure out what this was. It seems to be a show created using Sims 2 just like The Strangerhood. The author seems to believe Wikipedia is a free webspace provider like Geocities. If this project hasn't been released to the public, then it probably shouldn't have an article right now. When the project is released, we can revisit it to see if it meets notability. So I suggest deleting with no prejudice against recreating at a later date. - Superlex (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. It's really not notable as of now and formatted poorly. Happyme22 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. In an ideal world there'd be a speedy tag for this sort of thing. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very poorly written (an poorly spelled) article about an unknown online show, containing no references, made using the Sims game.-- danntm ^T _C —Preceding comment was added at 00:54, 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 Keep. Multiple sources establish its Notability. Non-admin closure. NAHID 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Carnot[edit]

No sources, no notability. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The French Language version has much more detail. Notable Lycée Carnot Paris alumni include Jacques Chirac. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable, but it needs clean-up to assert and verify the fact. Even the French wikipedia links to the school's own website as its main souce. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently very prestigious school based on alumni, sources have already been added to article that check out. Joshdboz (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple external sources establish notability for this school. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the nominator. I don't have anything in particular against this article. I didn't see that the article has a pretty big French version; thanks to this discussion i added iw links. If you ask me - by itself, the fact that Chirac studied there is not enough to establish notability, but if enough people think that it's notable, i don't mind keeping the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:34, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vonk (pubic toupee)[edit]

Non-notable neologism. The author states, in the edit summary of the article's creation, that he created this page to resolve a dispute in a private blog. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 13:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If anything, it should be in Wiktionary, as it already is, as noted here. Shoessss | Chat 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. JohnCD (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article is well sourced, non-commercial in its nature, and is at the very least in keeping with the other articles in the Fetish clothing manufacturers category. A quick search demonstrates how widely used the term is, in numerous languages. Jmckean55 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NoFew related ghits outside Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 15:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You are absolutely, 100%, exactly right! It is a term! As such, it should be in Wiktionary. Which it already is! Delete as an article. Shoessss | Chat 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not well sourced. It cites a wiki that that you yourself edited only a few hours ago to add the information to in the first place and Urban Dictionary, which encourages people to just make up stuff, as two of its sources. Neither of those are acceptable sources. Please provide proper sources. Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Vonk a ~~Dutch~~ slang term for penis? No way. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere does the article claim 'vonk' is Dutch slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.68.208 (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected on that. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:00, 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 delete and recreate as redirect to Spamdexing. Sandstein (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Farm[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Most ghits return blogs related to farms, not blog farms. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You nominated this for deletion eleven minutes after its creation. Is this really fair? Nick mallory (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes. There is no consensus to have a speedy deletion criterion for non-notable neologisms, except in cases of blatant vandalism, which this is not. So I'm bringing this here. The five days or so it will take for the discussion to close will give you plenty of time to edit the article to establish its subject's notability if it has any. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 14:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The neologism is fairly non-notable. The article should not have been created. Nomination is warranted, because the subject does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criterion. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3,000 google hits for "blog farm" "search engine". Google recently took steps to downgrade sites which it deemed to be artificially inflating their rankings through such blog farms. There are also several firms offering 'blog farm' software and services to generate traffic to sites. It's not just something made up by some guy one day last week. Nick mallory (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Should be moved to Wiktionary. Shoessss | Chat 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a fair cop even 11 minutes after creation; it's not like any work on the part of the creator is going to make it more notable. Also, per WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/redirect to Spamdexing which seems to be the dominant article for this sort of thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:29, 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.

Circlestrafing[edit]

The result was keep and rename. Addhoc (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{prod}} removed after a single reference was added. The article had been completely unreferenced for more than six months. It's almost completely original research. Mikeblas (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? Did you actually look for sources yourself, as both Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy say to do?
I did, and found ISBN 0596008848, page 587 of ISBN 1592730043, page 30 of ISBN 1584503440, page 177 of ISBN 0761532994, page 392 of ISBN 1584500778, and page 264 of ISBN 3540245758 (a.k.a. doi:10.1007/b106134) in under 2 minutes. There's even this from which further tidbits of knowledge on this subject can be gleaned.
Look for sources yourself and try to fix the article. Only bring articles to AFD if, after looking, you cannot find sources from which to make an article. And don't be afraid of boldly rewriting unsourced content into fully-sourced brilliant prose, and of merging, renaming, and refactoring articles about tangentially documented subjects into articles about the overall subjects that sources document — none of which require AFD. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rename Circle strafing Has 15,000 hits on google, including numerous game guides and this verifiable definition [18]. Lack of references and OR do not justify the deletion of an article if it is still notable. I would recommend the name change because that seems to be the much more common convention (see [19] compared with [20]). Joshdboz (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G User:Krator (t c) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename per Joshboz. The nomination of this article borders on the absurd. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename it is a part of a series of articles see Template:Game Jumps Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure where this should be proposed, but Straferunning should probably also be renamed to Strafe running (currently a redirect to Straferunning) or Strafe Running as google indicates it's a more common spelling. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article talk pages are usually fine. --Kizor (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I've now put a note on the talk page for that. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 05:28, 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 no consensus. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson V800[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Notability supported only by product reviews. Too few substantial references exist to support a viable Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory, and Wikipedia is also not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What a wretched article. The subject may be noteable, but the article will need a complete re-write if it's kept. Majoreditor (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About the only thing with inline references is that it is a clamshell in form. The article is full of apparent original research about its shortcomings and nature. The references do not satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog or a celphone blog. Edison (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without touching on the merits of this article, numerous mentions above of "Wikipedia is not a directory of cellphones" prompt me to wonder about the existence of Nokia products, and similar on the bottom of every Sony-Ericsson cellphone page, every Motorola cellphone page. Certainly Wikipedia is not a directory thereof, but one can hardly be questioned for following a well-established practice. Why is this particular phone singled out for deletion? Achromatic (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This phone has hardly been singled out. Read through the AfD archives to find other phones that have gone through the process. Even if they hadn't been put up, it's not possible to edit all the articles on the encyclopedia at once. If someone fixes a typo in an article, do you ask them why they singled-out that particular typo? Just because a "practice" is common-place doesn't make it correct or desirable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's referenced. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the references explain why this particular model of mobile phone is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - a pile of facts and figures mostly unsourced. Nothing here in the way of reliable sources to underpin notability. Most of the page fails WP:V. BlueValour (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable commercial product. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the past, I have supported phone articles when WP:V sources exist. Googling for reviews of this phone, I find them, even if the current ones need some supplementing. At any rate, I believe it meets notability requires, and hence support keeping it. SorryGuy Talk 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its no more notable than any one of hundreds of other "new" phones. Mbisanz (talk) 08:02, 24 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whealk[edit]

Originally tagged for {{prod}} by Marasmusine with the rationale "Neologism". The prod tag was removed. I am therefore bringing this to AfD as a clear contraventon of WP:NEO. There are no Ghits on this term in context, and it doesn't appear in any dictionary that I've looked in Tonywalton ^Talk 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly textbook WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The fact the article is unsourced makes this term a potential WP:MADEUP as well. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:13, 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. Kurykh 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kids Next Door Foreign Operatives[edit]

Minor fictional characters from KND with no sign of real world notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail to define notability either in real world or in-universe guides:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:42, 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, Davewild (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of a show does not account for every one of its characters. •97198 talk 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of non-notable characters, seems most ogf them have only been in one or two episodes. Ridernyc (talk) 03:01, 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 Delete. The arguments against merging were unrebutted and persuasive. Xoloz (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TbaMUD[edit]

Doesn't appear to be independently notable from its parent, all references are primary, also reads like an advert. {{mergeto}} tag removed by author. BLACKKITE 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge = Merge into DikuMUD. Shoessss | Chat 11:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable on its own, and if every DikuMUD derivative was merged into DikuMUD, the Wikipedia servers would catastrophically explode from the stress of having such an unimaginably gigantic article within. Lankiveil (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This page should stay. tbaMUD is a codebase, in the same way that Diku is a codebase, and is currently used by a number of active MUDs. It is vastly different from the Diku codebase, and so merging it into the Diku entry would be wrong. It is also possibly the fastest growing and most active codebase available, with a new release every few months. Anyone can contribute to the evolution of tbaMUD, and it is due to the work of dozens of people that this codebase is available. If the page sounds like an advert, it can be changed. Wiki pages should be factual, which is what I have tried to create. The tbaMUD entry should certainly not simply be dismissed and deleted. StefanCole (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (GMT).
- Comment. If you have any third-party, non-trivial (i.e. not just an item in a list) references to TbaMUD, that would go along ways towards keeping the article up. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's particularly important for articles on MUDs to show notability, with the thousands and thousands that are out there. Per WP:N guidelines, the best way to show this is through independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage. Nothing suitable appears in the 1350 ghits, so unless any reviews or articles have appeared in paper magazines, this should be deleted. Marasmusine (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability, and lack of reliable sources. Merge isn't really appropriate here for the exact same reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge = Merge into CircleMUD. Basically tbaMUD is the only circlemud release still under development. As it says on the circlemud page (and is thoroughly documented as well), development of circlemud was stopped after the release of circlemud 3.1. After some discussion on the circlemud mailing list, it was decided to keep the development running, but under the new name "tbaMUD". So this should be merged to circlemud, and tbamud added as an index for that page. This will help keep the public informed about where it is possible to get the "latest circlemud files". In short, TbaMUD is circlemud with a new name. Welcor (talk) 13:05, 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 Delete. If any editor would like to merge some of the content with Dead Sea or Michael Sinclair Sanders, I will provide the deleted text. BLACKKITE 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-sub Takes a Dive in the Dead Sea[edit]

No Reliable sources. Nehwyn (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or even speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a news source and there aren't any reliable sources. Littleteddy (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And rename Michael S. Sanders. There is enough information from reliable and verifiable sources to claim notability as show here[21] [22] Shoessss | Chat 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you used the wrong search strings - the corresponding correct ones would be this (much less than your 421,000 hits, and the highest-ranking results are commercial) and this (again much less than your 254,000 results, and the highest-ranking results are not relatd ti Michael Sanders). --Nehwyn (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry, you misconstrued my references. I was not suggesting that everything listed under the search criteria was relevant. Again, sorry if that was misleading. However, I still say keep, based on the very specific and qualifying search as noted here [23]. Shoessss | Chat 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. But when you use Google to search for references, remeber to use quote marks and to add "-wikipedia" at the end of your search string! As for the results of your (indeed) more specific search, only those ranked 3, 4 and 5 are acceptable - I'll review them as soon as I have a few minutes to spare. --Nehwyn (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOT#NEWS. This one event does not make Michael S. Sanders notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not notable, with or without references. If they find something interesting, then it might qualify. Until then, load it with ballast and sink it. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article, Michael Sinclair Sanders, created by the same editor yesterday. Citizenship Peace Plan, again by this editor, and concerning the same person, could maybe be merged and redirected to the biographical article? --Kateshort forbob 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Sinclair Sanders. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Sinclair Sanders and clean up the latter.-- danntm ^T _C 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Michael Sinclair Sanders or Dead Sea. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and merge any useful content with Dead Sea - non notable in itself. Springnuts (talk) 16:40, 23 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 deleted per CSD G4. --Stormie (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Hockey League[edit]

Previous discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Hockey League, was to delete.

League that didn't come to fruition in 2006, didn't come to fruition in 2007, and now, according to their official website, will exist in 2008. Let's not leave this around for another couple of years in hopes that it might exist, let's wait till it really exists. Corvus cornix_talk 08:50, 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. The advertizing aspect is not so blatant to qualify for speedy, so the issue shifts to notability, where the arguments for keep are stronger.--Kubigula (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BodyPump[edit]

Blatant advertising. Corvus cornix_talk 08:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. 'Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with {{db-spam}}.' (from WP:ADVERT). Littleteddy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one's been deleted before: [24]. Then as if by magic it returned. It remains advertising now as it was then. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate notability and sources. Seems to be as distinctive as Bikram yoga or Pilates. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In the article’s current state it is SPAM. Until rewritten Delete Shoessss | Chat 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how this could be rewritten in a more NPOV way as the article already seems quite matter-of-fact with no obvious hype. Please give an example of how you would like this rewritten and explain how this rewriting is to be done when the article is deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I know the (TM) makes it look annoyingly promotional, but it has 420,000 hits on google (I could find the number of unique hits but I keep flicking through and still haven't come to the end...and I'm already supposed to be out the door. Has no-one looked for sources before commenting? [25] a BBC website. It is held by gyms run by local councils in the UK, so is accessable and well known [26] (It claims to have research behind it- this could be looked up[27] this is just to show that it's available at many places. Could we reduce to a stub and then I will work on it or someone else, who like me is not associated with BodyPump(tm) :)Merkinsmum 13:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have checked the sources you listed and they are promotional websites. Come on, that does not make this article “Noteable”. Spam is still Spam no matter how many advertisements are out there. To reference Colonel Warden comments; “…I'm not seeing how this could be rewritten in a more NPOV.” That is just my point, SPAM be gone. Shoessss | Chat 13:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the BBC cite does not seem to be an advertisement and, as a source, is as reliable as they come. My impression is that you are just objecting to the fact that this is a commercial product. This is not sufficient grounds for deletion as commercial products are covered here when sufficiently notable. See Porsche, iPhone, Windows Vista, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have amended the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite Even though it appears to be spam, it has enough reliable sources to prove its notability. The article could use some major NPOV fixing by the way due to the tone of the article. PrestonH 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim Spamminess and Merge to Les Mills International. Not sure its notable on its own. Although as a segment of the firm's activities, it might be. If you axe some of the spam you would probably have a concise section that could fit into that article.Montco (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite There's a worldwide following for the program, so it's socially relevant FWIW. I understand the desire to merge under Les Mills International, but many folks aren't aware of that association. If the spaminess mentioned earlier can be removed to everyone's satisfaction then hopefully it can be kept as a stand-alone topic. (Craig Warman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.89.157 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one will know of Les thingy round here, but bodypump is on at most leisure centres in the UK. Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which something is commonly known to the majority of the public. And no, the BBC is not a promotional website, nor are local council government websites owned or paid by bodypump.Merkinsmum 01:33, 22 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. Kurykh 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Cotteli[edit]

Contested prod. Original author has major conflict of interest, as the CDfreedom catalog page for this artist's band Sheiks of Sheba (which is up for speedy, as this article was originally) contains the author's username in its URL. No other reliable, independent sources are provided. The author is apparently promoting the band and its lead singer, violating WP:SPAM. The artist also fails WP:MUSIC. See Talk:Sheiks of Sheba for related deletion discussions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search ([28])returns no reliable sources, so this person fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. It might even be WP:SPAM. Littleteddy (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – delete as not meeting WP:BIO. Likewise the band he is in Sheiks of Sheba should be deleted at the same time for the same reason Shoessss | Chat 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Sheiks of Sheba is also up for AfD now. The speedy notice was removed without comment by another editor. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:54, 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 --JForget 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Erl[edit]

9 Google hits none of which are relevant. Zero media. Party of which he is the 'leader' is not incorporated or recognized in Canada. Completely NN. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No secondary sources to establish notability. Littleteddy (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Shoessss | Chat 12:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Party leaders in a youth parliament are not notable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my removed Prod tag. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Fails the politician section of WP:BIO, because the new YPC is not a legislative body. Fails the general criteria due to lack of independent press coverage. I'll grant just enough assertion of notability that I won't speedy-delete it, but this is not a notable subject. —C.Fred (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So he is party leader/candidate of a mock political party that is running in a mock election for a mock parliment? Yeah, Delete. Reso lute 20:13, 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 Delete --JForget 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Wollin[edit]

10 google hits, zero media. Party of which he is the "leader" is not incorporated. Inherently NN. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No secondary sources to establish notability under WP:BIO. Littleteddy (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Shoessss | Chat 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethere is nothing noteable about this individual to require a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.49.18 (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Party leaders in a youth parliament are not notable. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote from my Prod tag that was removed, "Individual students participating in model parliaments aren't inherently notable." Nice to see young people interested in learning how their government works and all, but mock elections and appointments generally have no real-world notability. Complete lack of independent sources bears this out. See also Keegan Loyst, coming to an AfD near you soon. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mock politician in a mock election for a mock parliament. Reso lute 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mock parliaments, plus lack of sources, means no notability.-- danntm ^T _C 04:07, 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 delete. east.718 at 08:36, December 22, 2007

BusinessVoice[edit]

Non-notable company. Has been speedily deleted once as spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be spam. A Google search returns only news results and primary sources. Littleteddy (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be Speedy as spam. Maybe the second time will be the charm. Shoessss | Chat 12:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone please explain what makes this article spam? I would like to make the appropriate edits to keep it from being deleted. Jcramer519 (talk) 20:37, 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. Singu larity 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michiyo Akaishi[edit]

Non-notable manga artist. Of three sources, 2 are 404s and 1 is a user-contributed manga site. Google search reveals mostly author-atributions, a fanfic site or two, and no critical commentary on the artist. Google News has no hits. Even if some of these works of art are notable, notability doesn't transfer. Therefore, proposed for deletion. Mbisanz (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, Keep per further remarks from those who can read enough Japanese to see she has won awards, et al. Collectonian (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She's won two awards (now documented in the article). I've expanded the article a little, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search on Google convinces me that she is easily sufficiently notable. There seems to be a shortage of English language sources, which is perhaps not surprising, but that has no bearing on notability. I have added some refs to the article based on my search.--Michig (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the first to create this page, I request you stop this useless action early as possible. Michiyo Akaishi isn't an ordinary person, she is a mangaka, and at first she won manga awards. Only this can prove her a famous one. (I've read some of her manga, they're so good.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishishin (talk • contribs) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see how being a mangaka makes someone extraordinary, unless you mean in the same way that someone being a McDonald's cashier is extraordinary. JuJube (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only issue with this article is the lack of secondary sources, but that should be expected given that most of those sources will be in Japanese. Otherwise, the person appears to pass all of the other basic criteria of WP:BIO. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now multiple secondary sources for this article. I'm sure more can be found as these only took a few minutes to dig up. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep-with two dozen credits to her name, this smells strongly of a bad faith nom, especially with previous comments. Chris (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I researched it before proposing it here. I don't speak Japanese, but most of the sites I was getting were forums or attribution type things. And it was hitting anything for google news which is (should be?) cross language. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but from the creator's comments above, I'm not convinced this wasn't an add by a fan. Maybe it is notable, maybe its not, I wasn't convinced it was, so thats why I brought it here. Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad faith nom. The nominator is correct in that most references for this person are in Japanese, and there were no references at all in the article before I added a bunch. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Any winner of a major award like the Shogakukan Manga Award is DEFINITELY notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*muses to self* It's been on my back burner to copy citations for all the Shogakukan, Kodansha, and Media Arts awards to the mentions I added in all the articles for the winners. Guess I should kick that up in the queue. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nihonjoe and edits made after his involvement. Mangas are a major part of Japanese culture and mangakas can sometimes become more than notable. This appears to be such a case. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom. If you don't actually get around to it soon, perhaps you could just watchlist them all and add citations as tags and AfDs occur? --Gwern (contribs) 20:46 15 December 2007 (GMT)

Since it's pretty much a copy of the citation in the Awards articles, if I'm clicking through to watch, I might as well paste. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep need to find a way to allow one country to define someone as notable and that can then be taken as a fact by other wikipedias. Needs snowballing Victuallers (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem here was that the article was created with no refs at all, and no claims of notability at all. That has since been addressed. WP:N already takes into account that refs may be in other languages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:17, 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. east.718 at 08:37, December 22, 2007

Enemy Foot Soldier[edit]

Fails WP:FICT, mostly unsourced WP:Plot. Tagged for lack of notability since August with no change. Collectonian (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under this name; content may be appropriate elsewhere, but this generic name could only possibly serve as a dab page. JJL (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FICT. A dab page can be made if the need arises. Eusebeus (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information would be my suggestion; foot soldiers may not be notable enough by itself, but it is a notable aspect to the Power Ranger show as a whole. The best approach would probably be a merge with multiple articles though, not just one article in particular. Breaking up the information of each foot soldier into their appropriate Power Ranger season/rename; then merging that broken up info. with the Power Ranger season/rename's villain page that corresponds seems like the most logical approach.172.165.80.137 (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eikipedia is not the place for this type of minutia of detail on fictional subjects. Ridernyc (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of enemy foot soldiers in Power Rangers and improve. WP:FICT isn't worth the hard drive space it takes up. --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FICT --Jack Merridew 16:20, 21 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. Pigman☿ 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Snyder[edit]

Fails WP:FICT. 1 year old fictional baby on the show. No establishment of notability in the article, not even the name of the baby actor(s) playing him. Collectonian (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete Much too early for a character, both in-universe and out-of-universe. Cannot possibly establish notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:33, 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. east.718 at 08:39, December 22, 2007

Ethan Winthrop and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald[edit]

Fails WP:FICT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Pure, unadulterated WP:PLOT that is also extremely redundant when there is already an article each for Ethan Winthrop and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. Collectonian (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely delete. I cannot provide notability for this couple's article like I have for other fictional couple or supercouple articles. Redundancy is not the problem, because an article on a fictional supercouple can exist while being significantly different than the characters' individual articles (see Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone). The problem with this couple article starts with the fact that there does not seem to be any notability to provide to it. Perhaps, there are some TV Guide articles about this couple somewhere out there, but I have not found them yet. Flyer22 (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Transwiki/Delete until the time comes that notability is established. This article is nothing but a huge WP:NOT#PLOT violation. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an oversized plot summary violating several core policies (most importantly WP:SOAPOPERA), not to mention the individual character articles that already exist. •97198 talk 15:03, 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. No established editor has put forward an argument for retention here, so the decision is easy and unanimous. Xoloz (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Joe Puppet[edit]

Was previously speedied by User:Alabamaboy and contested (see user's talk page). I'm guessing it was deleted, as the date on that was October 22nd while the page was created on December 8th.

Anyway, a Google search turns up no hits aside from those on Wikipedia. Proposing delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not going back and looking over the deletion of the previous article. It was not deleted for notability but for "not asserting it's importance." Though the original article was deleted on that criteria, this separate article I believe satisfies that criteria. And as original creator of this article obviously feel that this article should not be deleted.

Oh and a search on Google for Curly Joe (the characters actual name) brings up mainly things on the Three Stooges character, who is undeniably a more popular character Underground Revolution (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I know the two other contributors to the article (one who created your referenced earlier article) will no doubt have opinions about this deletionUnderground Revolution (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article fails Wikipedia's fictional character notability guidelines, and does not use real-world sources to verify its notability. If you can remedy this that would be great. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is produced during the course of this AfD, per Wikipedia:Notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well written article on a media character of significance. Given, source materials could use improvement, but tag it as lacking sources and let it be improved rather than delete a fairly extensive article.CJ fan (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Note: WP:SPA. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be added to show notability, currently it doesn't even meet the core criteria of verifiability. RMHED (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability or verifiability and I am unclear as to its significance per the GS referenced in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources are found (I didn't have much luck), and added to the article. Ravenna1961 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Just concerning your search for musical medley, the first two CJ films productions as I understand it were almost unheard of and few people have ever seen the first two, so it is no doubt that the first two would not produce any results. Infact they were only made for VHS. I'm new to wikipedia and created my account just for this article, but can I use sources if there content is not found online? Such as magazines, or local non-internet newspapers? CJ fan (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If they are reputable, reliable sources, yes. For example, a high school newspaper is not a reputable source. See WP:CITE for more information. Thank you, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:25, 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. DS (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Boys[edit]

Can't find anything about the book or said author, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There's no evidence of existence, the article is all plot summary, and that plot summary reads like a bad S&M shota fanfic. deranged bulbasaur 09:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably a hoax, at best it's utterly non-notable. Hut 8.5 18:55, 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 as blatant hoax. GlassCobra 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Connell[edit]

The records listed in this article are completely fraudulent. A google search for "Brian O'Connell juggling" turns up no one with the name Brian O'Connell who is a world-class juggler. Additionally, these are the exact records and durations that world-class juggler Anthony Gatto has attained, with proof, on his website and JISCON (and copied directly from AG's WP page). This page needs to be deleted immediately. Rahzel (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - I believe that this page should be speedy deleted, but since speedy deletion was denied twice (by the same user), I'm listing here. Feel free to speedy delete this article if an admin agrees with me on this. Rahzel (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the idiot who fell for this and removed the speedy tag; no objection from me whatsoever if another admin wants to speedy it now. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as failing notability on second look. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:18, 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. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N. Non-admin closure. NAHID 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1951-1952 United States network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

I could see an article on TV programming in the 50's. Maybe even for individual seasons. But a programming grid? WP:NOT a (very old, very outdated) TV guide. — Coren ^(talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These have been kept (under different page AFDs) time and time again. Are we just going to keep voting until we get the result we want? This is just the most recent AFD on these types of articles, there have been at least five others. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of those previous AfDs. My reasoning still stands, however. At best, this is a copy of primary sources. — Coren ^(talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, your reasoning about this being a violation of WP:NOT doesn't stand the test of multiple AFDs, so you're going to have to reword that. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we confident that the source of this schedule is reliable? The website listed as the source doesn't appear to exist anymore, and the name "curtalliaume.com" doesn't really give much of a hint as to its nature. --Stormie (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While other programming grids may be included, the main issue that I'm finding with this one is that a) the references listed are broken links (at the moment, at least); b) the page listed, per cached view (from November 28), is someone's personal website and the main page doesn't reference the pages listed as referenced here, and may not be a reliable source, and c) I can't find a single reference page anywhere to back up a scheduling grid like this. The only way I can see to possible save any page like this would be to reference shows that were on-air during this time period (which I did find a fair amount of information on), but a programming grid is a little far-fetched based on the info available.Aeternitas827 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided sources can be provided in the page itself to reference this particular programming guide, deletion would be out of the question in my mind. However, merge with 1951-52 United States network television schedule (which currently only houses 7pm forward) is something that may be warranted, once this listing can be sourced.Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately sourced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all previous discussions that resulted in Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), etc. Wikipedia:NOT explicitily states:

For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Joshdboz (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see how these could be useful, some good sources would be helpful though. RMHED (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were available just two days ago, I think it's just a momentary site break.--Olbia merda (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historically important and per precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 17:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Punkmorten (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent novel presentation of a way to search for articles on shows. Bravo for innovation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide" is actually said in WP:NOT... Will ^(talk) 00:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike H. This isn't exactly a copy of TV Week. Perhaps merge a couple pages together, say "Network television schedules 1951-1955" if space is a concern? Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The network TV schedules were widely written about in major US newspapers and magazines, and adequate sources exist to determine what was or was not included in those schedules. There was substantial coverage each season of what would be added, removed, and kept in this network programming. Satisfies WP:N on the basis of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, from Time to the New York Times.This is not a "TV Guide" schedule of what is available for viewing this week, so the reference to WP:NOT as a basis for deleting in mistaken. It is folly to suggest either that 1)there was no network TV schedule in the year in question, or 2)that it and each of the programs in it was not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 03:54, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clark (actor)[edit]

An actor "best known" for a role in a made-for-TV holiday docudrama hardly meets WP:BIO. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; IMDB seems to turn up a few hits. However, that may not be the same Chris Clark, though I think it is probable seeing that they both have a middle name starting with 'L'. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if IMDb is correct (and I'm far from 100% confident that it is, when it comes to obscure actors with common names), this Chris Clark and Chris Clark (ice hockey) are the same person. --Stormie (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so... the one listed in IMDB is considerably younger. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit actor listed in IMDb is not notable. Fails WP:BIO miserably. If he is the hockey player, it may merit a sentence or two there. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems non-notable. RMHED (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now, doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements. Perhaps this article can be recreated once he has a few notable roles. TGreenburgPR (talk) 05:31, 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. Singu larity 08:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Griggs[edit]

Non notable fictional character. No sources. — Coren ^(talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michaelbusch (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT RMHED (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Albert Gray has a history of creating articles for very minor fictional characters. Perhaps an administrator could contact him and clarify some guidelines for him so he doesn't persist with this practice. MovieMadness (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 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 Redirect. Pigman☿ 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cheney[edit]

Non-notable self-published (AuthorHouse) author, no references or sources Accounting4Taste:talk 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable characters within a self-published novel:

Redirect Sebastian Cheney to Marcus Sebastian Mason. Delete Task Force Black Talon per nom. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect both to Marcus Sebastian Mason, although probably only a sentence or so of Task Force Black Talon would be appropriate. --Stormie (talk) 09:15, 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 Redirect. There isn't really enough discussion to draw a firm conclusion here, but the matter can be handled editorially with a redirect, and so it shall be. Xoloz (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curse Your Name[edit]

Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Dozen Furies (2nd nomination) was for the winners of Battle for Ozzfest, this article on one of other groups, which is still planning on releasing their debut album next year, probably doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reversed into "other stuff got deleted" and used as a deletion argument. ;-) But seriously, I agree, redirect to Battle for Ozzfest. --Stormie (talk) 09:18, 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 redirect to relevant district. Singu larity 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville Elementary[edit]

Non-notable elementary school. Deprodded without explanation. Closedmouth (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, article has very little info about subject, not apparently notable. --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikipedia:School#Failure to establish notability. I'm also pretty sure the school exists. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. -- Mikeblas (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence isn't the same as notability. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:12, 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 delete. Singu larity 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's Camp[edit]

Deletion nomination Was speedied as lacking assertions of notability. Article was recreated without addressing that concern. There is no evidence that this camp has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources; the basic requirements of notability. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources to assert notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notabilty can be established. RMHED (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another camp that has no real notability.Montco (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:14, 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 Delete based on strength of arguments. There may be reason for an article on this topic, but the present article doesn't make a case from reliable sources that this is so. I'll be glad to userfy for sourcing upon polite request; the case for the article was not helped by the needlessly aggressive tone of the article's author. (I considered a merge and redirection, but this particular title is probably best redirected to devil. Xoloz (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of Darkness[edit]

Deletion nomination Article is about a single character from a single movie. There is no evidence at all that reliable sources have discussed this character to this depth at all. This is largely original research and there is NO independent verification of any of this information at all. This takes an entirely in-universe perspective as well, in violation of WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines. This is not surprising, as no reliable sources seem to have dealt with this topic in any significant way. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and so feel obliged to defend it. Perhaps if you'd care to observe the article again you'd see that it does not take on an in-universe perspective. It refers to the actor who played the character, it refers to the characters effect on popular culture, it refers to the actors who played the other characters, it takes on a detached, formal tone and it refers to symbolism. None of this is in-universe at all. There is no original research that I can see, the article contains an external link which I in my wisdom so graciously provided and I did try and do some references but I haven't quite got the hang of them yet, I'm relatively new on Wikipedia. Furthermore the article is about a notable character from a well-known film of cultural significance who has had something of an effect on popular culture. I hope you will take these things into account and maybe re-evaluate your hypothesis before jumping to conclusions. Regards, Illustrious One.
- Just put the citations in. Other editors can help with the templates. Without them, there is no proof whatsoever of your bald assertions that this is notable. We don't work on the basis of simply taking pseudonymous people at their word for factual assertions around here. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't you here what I just said? I can't do citations, idiot. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please, no personal attacks here. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rubbish. Of course you can. Simply state in the article what books, articles, papers, and so forth the information that you are writing comes from.
      Of course, if you are saying that you cannot do citations because there are no books, articles, papers, and so forth that your information is coming from, then you have just explained why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, and is not a publisher of first instance. It's an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT issues. It isn't enough to say "X is a fictional character in Y" to give an article's subject real-world context. The influence on the development of Ganon might be a consideration; however, the concession that a source can't be found doesn't help the article's prospects. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why did this go to deletion discussion at all? The problems with this article could have and should have been handled via citation tags and the article's talk page. Also, see WP:BITE. One of the problems cited, "in-universe", is totally incorrect - the article is clearly about a fictional character from a movie. Most of the article is an articulate and perceptive description of the character and the story in which he is portrayed, which can be verified by simply watching the movie. The primary source, the movie (also a "primary source"), is provided in the first sentence. For more about the use of "primary sources" see WP:PSTS and the debate about fiction on it's talk page. I've seen the movie, but I appreciate the character "The Dark Lord" more now that I've read this article, which makes me want to see the movie again! Also, this subject has great potential for expansion, such as including information about that incredible make-up job, who designed it, what it was made of, how long it took to apply, etc. And I'm certain that Tim Curry had something to say about his role, and that can be included as well. Definitely a keeper. Let Illustrious One develop the article further, as he is obviously interested in doing so. If the article hasn't been improved to your satisfaction within a month, bring it back here. The Transhumanist 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia means teamwork. Let's give Illustrious One a hand: congrats on a well-written description of the character (clap clap clap), and some help in the citation department. ;-) The Transhumanist 16:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Transhumanist, are you saying you appreciate this article because of the original research put into it or because of its lack of any citations to anything outside of the movie itself? While Wikipedia should contain articles about fictional characters where such characters receive significant coverage in reliable sources, I see no evidence that this character has ANY such sources in existence. Illustrious One claims that sources exist, but has yet to provide them. I have doubts that they do, and without any verifiability, I see no reason to keep this article... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there are WP:PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:WAF issues. It's written mostly in-universe. Just because we know it's a fictional character from a movie doesn't mean the prose can put it in-universe. Being a character from a single movie and with no references outside of the movie itself does not assert notability for an article. Any relevant information can go into the article for the movie, providing it's backed by some references. Lara❤Love 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no in-universe context whatsoever. Furthermore by citations I thought you meant references, Uncle G. I begrudgingly apologise. And thank you for your support Transhumanist, it's nice to see someone with a brain around here. (*Takes a bow*).Illustrious One —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Fictional Character History is basically a rehashed plot summary from the movie, which gives the article in-universe context. Also, please remain civil in this AfD. Implying that the only editors who agree with you "have brains" doesn't win you any points. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Lord of Darkness is a fictional movie character that has had impact similar to The Predator. There have been two action figures recently released of the character. I have read discussions on the impact of the character in third-party sources before. The subject of the Lord of Darkness is notable and worth keeping, although the article definitely needs work. I'll go through and add references that I can find, but if we can agree that the character has notability, then we can focus on the development of the article. InVinoVeritas (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. We still have ZERO evidence that this character is discussed in reliable, independent sources. Regardless of how awesome and cool the character is, with no sources outside of itself to reference (see WP:N), there is no evidence that the character is notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McFarlane Toys and SOTA Toys might not be publishers, but they have produced products based on a perceived continued marketability of the character. This qualifies as making the Lord of Darkness commercially notable.InVinoVeritas (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look in the Influence section. An individual dressed up as the character for a social event, he was featured in an episode of the hit television programme Family Guy, two action figures hav been made of him and he was an inspiration for one of the most popular computer game villains of all time, namely Ganon. He's extremely notable. Furthermore it's not a case of the character being "awesome and cool", it's a case of him being a notable character from a culturally significant film. If the Dark Overlord of the Universe from Howard the Duck can get a bleeding article then Darkness certainly can. --Illustrious One (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article has been challenged as having no cited references. WP:VER states that the burden of supplying the citations lies upon the writer or those who wish to retain the article. I suggest you focus your effort with respect to this AfD on adding citations to the article. There have to be movie reviews, interviews, etc. somewhere. The Transhumanist 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above points. --Shark face 217 23:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added Costume Design section. The costume design of the Lord of Darkness won it multiple Best Make-up and a Best Costume Design nomination from reliable independent sources, including the Academy Awards.InVinoVeritas (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see why all that information can't be put into the article on the movie. The question is not whether or not the movie has enough information to merit an article, it clearly does. The question is whether or not this one character does. The character did not win the award, the movie did. And hundreds of characters from movies get action figures. It doesn't mean that people have WRITTEN about them. The thing we need to see is WRITING, like words on paper or on a website or something, about this character. I still see no evidence of any. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. And sorry for saying you had no brains, I have a vicious tongue I'm afraid. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked. I still don't see anything. The only reference in the article is a link to the IMDB article on the movie. Again, anything that needs to be said about this character can be said in the article on the movie itself. Without evidence that people have written about the character on its own, Wikipedia does not need to write about the character on its own. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imbecile: To quote the article :

The Lord of Darkness has been the subject of two action figures, a 7" figure by McFarlane Toys and one 1/4 scale model by SOTA toys. [29]

I have since added three more.

Legend review, mentions Curry, his makeup, and the makeup artist.

Makeup artist nominated for Academy Award for Makeup

The Legend FAQ (general info about the movie)

Will that suffice? Hmm?

--Illustrious One (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Frankly, the first two links would be better suited for the main film article. The third link, however, is a fan site and is not considered as a reliable source. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the character is notable, there is not enough real world context to justify this character having his own article. Anything that can be said can be discussed in the main film article. Articles need to be based on real world context, not a plot summary with some minor context thrown in to try to make it pass policy. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggest deleting this entire article and moving all the numerous facts it contains to the Legend article. If that happens don't you think the Legend article will be just a bit big? What would be the point? Just give the guy an article, he deserves it. He's the most well-known character from a well-known cult film and the article has citations, external links, it's informative, is written from an out-of-universe perspective and it provides a broad range of information on various topics. All it needs is an image and it will be feature article standard for the love of God! What what would be the point in deleting it? --Illustrious One (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is original research anyways. If the article is pared down to the essentials, there is very little that would need to be moved over. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is deleting the article, since there is almost nothing here worth saving. Sorry to be rude but you are really crossing a line.Ridernyc (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please back you accusations up with evidence by pointing out any original research that might by some meagre stretch of the imagination be in the article. --Illustrious One (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. The entire personality section, for one. Where is this analysis of the character's personality and motives published BESIDES here at wikipedia? The entire fictional character history, while not exactly original research, is basically the scenes the character appears in, as pulled from the main plot synopsis. This is simply a restatement of stuff that would do fine in the main article on the movie. The idea that Gannon is based on him is also entirely original research, as far as I can tell, since there is no reference to it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire personality section is a composition of obvious facts that are drawn from the movie. The thing about Ganon (with one "n" by the way) being based on him is a well-known rumour that is also mentioned in the Legend article if you'd care to have a look. Merry Christmas. --Illustrious One (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your comment is the crux of why we have a policy of no original research. It may be obvious to you, but unless it is documented somewhere in reliable sources, you are just posting your observations. Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single character from a single film with original research and NPOV issues. Fails notability and a glut of plot. Notability does not inherit and the character does not stand alone from the film. The two little bits of real world info (costume design and toy line), if properly cited, belong in the main article. I don't even see any sign that an attempt was ever made to include a proper character section in the main article with coverage of this character, despite the film article being barely above stub level. Collectonian (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you insolent little twerp: Barely above stub level? It's the stuff of Good articles! All it needs is an image and a few citations. Furthermore there is no "glut of plot", there is a swift analysis of the character's role in the film, there is plenty of notability because as I have stated the character is an iconic character from a culturally significant film. And as the character is the most notable character in the film and has been featured in other media (an episode of the cult television programme Family Guy for one) he does indeed stand alone from the film. Additionally I don't know what you mean by "two little bits of real world info" when the article references the actors who play the characters, the section about the voice, a popular culture section and takes on a detatched formal tone throughout. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Illustrious One, please refrain from personal attacks. No one has said anything about you or directed any criticism towards anything but this article, and several times during this debate you have resorted to base name-calling and personal attack on editors themselves. Please read the Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility and ownership of articles, and kindly abide by them. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realise I have made a few insults but I haven't made any personal attacks per ce. I haven't made personal remarks about anyone I've just called people "idiots, imbeciles, buffoons and insolent twerps" and accused them of lacking brains. That's not personal, it's just offensive. If I called one of the users fat that would be a personal attack. Furthermore I'm not being possessive of the article. I am happy for people to contribute to it, I want people to edit it, what I don't want them to do is delete it and a few times during this discussion I have lost my temper when I have felt people are missing the point and violated the laws of civility. I apologise. By the way Collectonian, sorry about calling you an insolent little twerp, I didn't realise you were talking about the Legend article when you said it was barely above stub level, I thought you were talking about this one. --Illustrious One (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think you would appreciate it if someone accused you of being an idiot, buffoon, imbecile, or the like so it would be best to leave out all types of attacks whether personal or offensive. Also, please understand that Wikipedia is an open edit encyclopedia. I'm sure you noticed the disclaimer,If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it., so that it includes deletion. You want people to add, but not delete from your work? I highly recommend reading up on WP:NPA and WP:OWN. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I wouldn't. I'm sorry. Furthermore I don't mind people adding or removing things to/from the article. I just don't want them to delete the whole thing because I think it is informative, interesting and useful. That's my humble opinion anyway. I don't mind if people mercilessly edit or redistribute it for profit, etc, just so long as they don't eradicate it. If you did delete the article it would not be the end of the world admittedly but I would be quite annoyed as would a number of other people I believe. I hereby withdraw my insults and in return I hope you will take my points on the article's notability into account. I agree that a few more citations and/or external links would help. --Illustrious One (talk) 01:11, 22 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 --JForget 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 8600 Luna[edit]

Another non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, and this article is nothing more than a description of the phone's features. Insufficient substantial third-party sources exist to carry a viable Wikipedia article on this product. The article is just a list of features and essentially unreferenced. Listing for AfD after {{prod}} removed. Mikeblas (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. Edison (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 1000s of people will have this phone. It is notable. --For Queen and Country (talk) 08:07, 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, CitiCat^♫ 03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep refs exist, and they are extensive. Enough for notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to verify notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a cell phone catalog. That's what the Nokia website is for. Collectonian (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been sourced to verify its notability. PrestonH 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations clearly pass WP:N. --Mdmkolbe (talk) 22:31, 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. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy "Ardie" Davis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Randy "Ardie" Davis

Declined speedy because notability is asserted in the form of multiple publications, and talk page discussion. My opinion is to delete, but that this did not meet speedy deletion requirements. - Philippe | Talk 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears notable, as he has published a book and quite a few articles. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is in poor repair, but the subject is notable. I think a little work will go a long way. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending rewrite, using pronouns. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- his book is far from widely held, with only 16 libraries showing up in WorldCat; and all the articles are on his own website or other wikis. I'm sure he's a fine dulcimer-builder, but this reads like an ad to me (and is a WP:COI since the primary author is also the subject of the article). -- phoebe/(talk) 01:00, 12 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, CitiCat^♫ 03:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability. Writing a book does not make one notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per phoebe. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publishing a book, especially through a print on demand company, is nowhere near enough to meet WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 12:34, 22 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 WP:N (people). Non-admin closure. NAHID 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pata[edit]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata

Non-notable player. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. There's nothing here that claims that this particular football player was notable. There was a previous AfD, which apparently resulted in the article being kept, but nothing has changed since then in this article which explains how this murder victim is somehow different from any other murder victim. Corvus cornix_talk 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" clearly shows that he is notable for both his murder (which generated significant news coverage) as well as simply being a major college football player.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a high-level NFL draft prospect and was on the watchlist for the Hendricks Award. I've added references corroborating both of these facts. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His play before he was murdered generated significant press on its own, and thus he is notable for that reason. His murder adds additional sources for referencing the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent, major college football players are generally considered notable. The sources added establish notability even more clearly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He was listed as a high school All-American by SuperPrep. High school All-Americans are inherently notable. Also, he was one of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's top 100 players in the South in his senior year. Blueboy 96 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember seeing this on the news and hearing it on the radio quite a bit. I think that warrants notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's perfectly clear that he meets both general notability criteria ([30]) and also the specific sports criteria (as stated above by User:Thomas.macmillan). --Stormie (talk) 09:26, 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 'Already speedy deleted. Bduke (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ijaz(TheHeer.com Fashion Label)[edit]

Notability concerns; after a search I could not find any reliable third-party sources, and the article itself reads like an advertisement. There is also a copyright concern; the article is more or less lifted from www.theheer.com. PirateMink 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As spam or A7 no assertions of notability. Take your pick. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:09, 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, obvious hoax. Sandahl 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cook[edit]

Suspected hoax; a search for Barry Cook and Melbourne Victory brings up nothing but a wikipedia mirror, not to mention that someone who is apparently 17 probably hasn't been playing professional football for at least 6 years. PirateMink 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Delete A very obvious and unimaginative load of nonsense, but not, strictly speaking, the patent variety. RMHED (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Obvious hoax. Tend to think that a sixteen year old who played for both Celtic and Rangers might have got at least some coverage. Additional thought: try adding add up all the seasons he has allegedly played. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as nonsense per CSD G1 or G3. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as nonsense, plain and simple, so tagged. I'm going with G3 since it isn't quite patent nonsense; patent nonsense would be 892375qiouwwerahljkg;ahsd;aflwej;rlrweahjefkl;awejhfl;kawefjk;awelgkl;sdj;gha nnnlk;newa;rk;j. (Couldn't resist.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 per TPH. Obviously somebody has a pretty active imagination (author's username is Barry9191). Blueboy 96 06:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense/vandalism hybrid. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:00, 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 and redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiro (fictional character)[edit]

Per WP:FICT. Does not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and lack secondary sources (real world information.) More than enough information is available here. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am also nominating the following related pages:

Merge all into List of characters in SRMTHFG! --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect all No merge needed. The list article already has enough information on all of these. None of these characters is discussed in reliable, secondary sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect/Delete - Go with whichever gets the most attention. The articles clearly lack any real world information, so they do not require expanded coverage. TTN (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All — non-notable; then redirect to where ever... --Jack Merridew 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of characters in SRMTHFG!, which seems to already provide sufficient detail, so no real merge needed. Notability not established, major WP:NOT#PLOT problems, per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect all as above. No real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of characters in SRMTHFG!; fail WP:FICTION on their own. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:17, 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 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chieko Hosokawa[edit]

Non-notable manga artist. No sources given. Google search reveals entry on user-contributed managa encyclopedia. Further google shows little if any commentary on individual. While her comic may be notable through its article here and on google search, notability doesn't transfer. Also, no hits on google news, other then a listing of a sale of manga. All points at not-notable Mbisanz (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The person in question is female. JuJube (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, refactored to proper gender. Mbisanz (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is not that non-notable at least in Japan. She's been working as a manga artist for decades. Ja google search hits 14800 and here is the list of some of her works. Oda Mari (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. She is very notable, with one manga series running since 1976 (52 volumes release so far), and other long series as well. One of her manga series has been adapted into two different TV dramas (one in 1970, the other in 2006). I've expanded the article and added some sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that further research has shown that the second series I mentioned was adapted from (not to) a 1970 TV drama. That doesn't affect her notability, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Michiyo Akaishi, the issue with this article is the lack of secondary sources on the article, but that should be expected given that most of those sources will be in Japanese. Otherwise, the person appears to pass all of the other basic criteria of WP:BIO. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author of a highly notable manga series. Especially with the expansions since the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find Nihonjoe's comments persuasive. --Gwern (contribs) 20:47 15 December 2007 (GMT)
Keep Receiving an award for one of her long manga series and another manga series adapted into a TV drama in 1986 establish her notability. --Kusunose (talk) 02:13, 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 (G5) by Dreadstar. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Hills, California, (Anaheim)[edit]

Article already exists at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, this new article has been made from edits on the original that were reverted. PirateMink 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fork clearly not necessary, the contentious changes should be discussed on the talk page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G5 Duck test indicates that article's author is a sock of banned user Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Blueboy. NickPenguin, if you take a look at the talk page of the main article, you'll see that the contentious changes have been discussed there, extensively. A sock block is needed for the creator of this page, User:Dgxf. Deor (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He just tried to remove the AfD tag anonymously. I reported him to AIV, but it got turned down since there weren't enough warnings. This one might be going down hard. Blueboy 96 05:16, 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. Multiple reliable sources are available in this entrey, which apparently proves its notability. Non-admin closure.--NAHID 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Lancaster[edit]

Nominated purely for notability issues, not to mention there are plenty of murder victims in the world and unlike Rhys Jones, this article isn't going to do anything to deserve its own article, not to mention that this is not a memorial site. Wiki Deleting Machine (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — Wiki Deleting Machine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep What notability issues exactly? It's been covered by a wide variety of local and national press and mentioned by Conservative Leader David Cameron in a speech about crime. How do you know what the article is 'going to do' in the future exactly? Does your wiki deleting machine have a TARDIS built into it too? Nick mallory (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close This AfD is the nominator's fourth edit. Suspect nomination was not made in good faith. Blueboy96 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. can you define why is this not done in a good faith, I had been contrubited to this site before and this is my first as an account holder, I'm sure I am entitled to nominate this for deletion. As for Nick, I'm sure David Cameron will do what other politians do and jump to the bandwagon and namedrop her in reference to fight crime and I'm sure Gordon Brown will do the same too, George Bush and Tony Blair has done this in the past. Wiki Deleting Machine (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about? The point was her case was used by David Cameron in a speech to highlight a major issue, so giving this case the wider context it needs to merit a place on Wikipedia. If Gordon Brown mentioned her, that would make her less notable in your eyes? I don't understand the logic you're using here. Are you saying the article on Willie Horton should go for the same reason? Nick mallory (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Murdercruft sums it all up, there are plenty of murder victims, so if this stays, then why don't all murder victims get their article. Charley Uchea (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Socrates has an article but he should be deleted because not all Greeks have an article? What point are you trying to make here? I'm going by wikipedia's notability criteria, not making up non policies like 'murdercruft' to substantiate my argument. Once again, I'm agreeing with you that not all murder cases make it, but not all such cases get national press coverage (Daily Mail, Guardian, BBC etc) and have been used in speeches by the leader of the Conservative Party to highlight a wider issue. On a side note, does it seems strange to anyone that two completely different and unrelated people so new to wikipedia and with nothing on their user pages seem so passionate about this article at the same time? Nick mallory (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as Nick Mallory has stated above and does anyone else smell laundry...socks to be precise? Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They ain't my socks, I just changed mine. :-) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple mainstream national media sources, over a four month time period (the latest was yesterday) - this easily meets the notability requirements. As for other murder victims - if you can find multiple mainstream sources for them, feel free to create an article. That other articles have not been written is not sufficient reason to delete this one! (There are also plenty of murder victims who do have an article under Category:Murder victims). As for Wikipedia:Murdercruft, where is the appropriate Wikipedia page for this term? This reasoning sounds like Wikipedia:Cruftcruft to me. Mdwh (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - notability is well established. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that the nominator doesn't have the courage of his convictions to nominate under his main account doesn't help. --Stormie (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The goth-hate aspect makes it an especially notable murder. Wiki Keeping Machine (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiki Keeping Machine" has been blocked for disruptive editing. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Stormie (talk) 12:53, 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 utter garbage. DS (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Airport of Stone[edit]

smells hoaxy to me, nothing on google Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 01:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Nobody's planning to build an airport runway next to ancient Stonehenge, any more than they would put an airport inside the Grand Canyon. Visit this website if you want to learn how to get there by car or bus, or to the train station that's a little more than 9 miles distant. Mandsford (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 My suggestion--kill it quick. Obvious hoax. Blueboy 96 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is a hoax. A new airport, especially one near a national heritage site would be incredibly controversial. The Druids and hippies would go mental! There is 0% chance that it would get no Google hits if it was real. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:04, 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 keep certainly no deletion consensus Doc^g 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Neville[edit]

Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children. Fails WP:Notability Toddst1 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets may be involved in this discussion. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/James brown1605. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. I can find a few references to his activities as a football agent [31] and charitable activities at Bury F.C.; [32] but really his notability appears mainly due to being the father of three sporting siblings Gary Neville, Phil Neville and Tracey Neville and, of course, being called "Neville Neville". Tonywalton ^Talk 12:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's notable enough to get mentioned often in articles on the children, that seems good enough. Article moved from Neville neville to Neville Neville. Gimmetrow 19:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be mentioned frequently because of his name, not any personal achievements. - fchd (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable only for who his kids are, and notability is not inherited ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NN is also involved with Bury F.C. (a former director), and has received quite a bit of coverage from the national media (see [33]). Not sure if this makes him notable though. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's only notable because of his name and who his children are. – Pee Jay 09:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the father of two football players is not an assertion of notability. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete. I don't think he ever played football and is only notable for his name, his children and being director at Bury F.C., the latter of which I don't think is worthy of a bio. Peanut4 (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - county cricketer, director of a league football club - not to mention his high profile because of his sons and daughter - quick Google search shows as many sources as you could need. Each of the items of notability may or may not prove notability but combined they do.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a county cricketer, he was a local league cricketer. And notability is not inherited from having a famous child or three. So that only leaves being a club director - is every football club director inherently notable? I think not...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that anyone that has ever played a game (even just came on as sub) for the likes of Bury F.C. is notable??--Vintagekits (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer to this Chris? I suspect it could be because your answer would be yes! Please confirm or deny.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we can the sarcastic tone for a minute? As it happens I hadn't noticed your comment being posted, that's why I hadn't replied. And why is it so important to know my views on player notability? Firstly, it in no way relates to this debate (which is not about a player), and secondly I don't see you challenging any of the other editors who made exactly the same point. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcy tone here I assure you - it was a genuine question - which you have avoided! As for "why is it so important to know my views on player notability" - this is an AfD - its not a vote it all about opinions.

I for one would say that the chairman of a club (especially a high profile one) is generally more notable and/or important than say a player that has made a loan appearance for a club or a striker without a goal for the club! or a no mark keeper who came on with 4 minutes to go - shall I continue?

Finally - I don't see you challenging any of the other editors" - its not personal just just happened to reply to my comment. --Vintagekits (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, for the record I don't believe that any player who's ever played one minute of league football is inherently notable. But that doesn't in anyway impact on my view that being one of many board members at a club doesn't make one inherently notable either...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement about that then. However, I consider that due to the level of press coverage that NN has received - granted much because of his sons and his name makes him pass NN. I'll ad a few sources myself to improve the article. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep his notability can be justified by the following: 1. A number of sources available 2. A career in cricket 3.his relation to three sports players 4. His cult status amongst football supporters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.104.27 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he has not had "a career in cricket" - he played local league cricket. - fchd (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he is also the agent for The Neville Brothers and has gained notoriety amongst the media, partly for his amusing name, but also for his antics at the last world cup, where he was seen partying drunkenly with the WAGS (wives and girlfriends of footballers) in Germany (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392175&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5) and was also involved in a campaign to save Bury F.C from falling into administration (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/bury/1867131.stm) and this quote shows how he saved them from extinction: "Neville tirelessly organised supporters groups, gave media interviews, worked closely with the administrators, and finally arranged a deal which would ultimately save the Shakers from extinction. We owe him a huge debt." (http://www.buryfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/ForeverBury/0,,10422,00.html,) he is joined by his wife, Jill Neville on the board of Bury F.C to complete an extraordinary sporting family. I feel there is sufficient material and significance to keep this article. 86.142.104.27 (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His cricket career is merely non-notable; his relation to other sportsmen is not an assertion of notability; and his "cult status among football supporters" is hardly verifiable. And finally there's no source establishing enough notability for him out of his relationship to Phil and Gary Neville. WP:N is clear on this point. --Angelo (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and his role in saving Bury F.C and becoming a director there? John Henry Davies (link below) has his own article merely based upon this, in this case for Manchester United, therefore shouldn't Mr. Neville? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies)86.142.104.27 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But his entry doesn't even mention anything to do with that for a start. Peanut4 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but this discussion has! If it were updated, would it then become notable? 86.142.104.27 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that 86.142.104.27 has not made any other edits other than this page. See WP:SPA. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah mate I am such a noob! Don't hold it against me mate!86.142.104.27 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely how notable someone is varies from reader to reader? I have no doubt that i will not have heard of some people that you consider to be notable whereas neville neville would be considered to be notable by a large number of people i know. The fact that someone has created a page for him and others have condoned it on this discussion page proves his notability. Just a thought but perhaps those people that know of Neville (ie football fans of which there are millions in the UK) aren't the type of people to come and fight his corner on these types of discussion page? His name is precisely one of those commonly quoted facts that people (like me) come to this website in order to verify. I think its ridiculous that such a public website like wikipedia can only have on it articles that everyone agrees with. Just accept the fact that while this article might not be pertinent to you it will prove useful to others and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.114 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note first ever edit by the above IP editor ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance up the page reveals that pretty much all the people !voting to delete the article are members of the Wikipedia football project and therefore by definition are football fans...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you are deliberately misinterpreting that point, or do you seriously believe that the majority of avid football watchers participate in this type of discussion about someone's notability on pages such as this..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i have added the additional information and extra sources on the page. i think that the volume of secondary sources included in the article and available on the internet are proof of notability. agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this probably puts it to bed - agent for two premiership footballers--Vintagekits (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, still can't see how being an agent for anybody makes them notable. Still Delete, getting stronger by the day. - fchd (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with part of what you say, but "getting stronger by the day" - surely you dont believe that - infact I would say its weaker by the day. I would challenge you to show how it is weaker. In truth I dont really care if it is kept of not so I am completely neutral - but if one thing comes out of this is that the level of notability for footballers needs to be readdressed.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just his position as a football agent that makes him notable, its everything in tandem that makes him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"getting stronger by the day?" Marktherufftheryder is right, it is the combined issues and the increasing amount of references that makes him notable. 86.142.104.27 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How can people dispute notability and say things such as 'he is only notable for his name.' Surely that statement is in itself confirming that he is notable regardless of the reason and that was before all of his other achievements were added to the page. Also since when is notability only conferred by 'achievements'? Wikipedia has articles on people such as Coleen McLoughlin and Paris Hilton whose 'achievements' are laughableMarktherufftheryder (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Tonywalton. --John (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, - the nominator states "Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children." - now that I have undertaken some work would he now agree that this is incorrect?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm glad the references have been found but I'm not convinced that he's WP:Notable outside the context of his children. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Did his work at Bury FC have anything to do with his sons? Also although his agent work was for his sons the work is all of his own and is notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment None of this, either on it's own or combined, makes him even close to being notable at all. As I said before, my opinion of delete is getting stronger by the day. - fchd (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - CommentYes, I know you have said that it is "getting stronger by the day" - however, you have failed to explain why. Remember this is a discussion not a vote. The majority of the "delete" !votes have been shown to be incorrect following the additional references that have been added to the article.
      - Finally, do you consider him more or less notable than the following current Bury "players" Cameron Belford, Domaine Rouse and Aaron Grundy. try and make your reply informative and cordial as once again this is a discussion not a vote.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - in my opinion, it's getting stronger by the day as the only things that can be found are non notable, despite people spending a lot of time looking. I haven't looked at the Bury players to check whether they'd made professional appearances or not, but (and again in my opinion), players are more notable than agents and/or directors. If there wasn't any players we wouldn't have a game, but the less said about agents and directors the better. - 10:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

Thats fair enough, all I was looking for is for you to rationalise your decision - which you have. I think we will just have to agree to disagree then. Also I wouldnt agree that a player that has made one appearance as a substitute is more notable than good ould NN.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the fact that article X exists on a non-notable (or potentially non-notable) topic does not give a free pass to another article on a non-notable (or potentially non-notable) topic (see WP:WAX), so arguments of "he is more/less notable than such-and-such an article which already exists" are irrelevant..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the guidance in "arguments to avoid" - It is doesn’t say that it is "irrelevant" it says that it should be avoided. And in this case it is not like I am comparing Hulk Hogan with Gerry Adams - the people I mention are comparable. - this is a direct comparison of two individuals at the same club - one ran the club, was the head of high profile campaign to keep it in business and is credited to some degree with saving the club (and that is ignoring his work as an agent and all the stuff/guff about his name and sons) - and the other has played one game as a substitute.

Looking at it for the layman's perspective - do you think "people" would be more likely to search for information on Neville Neville or Cameron Belford?

Like I said above, I don’t really care if it is deleted or not but it highlights the farce that is the notability criteria for footballers - and noting that I am a massive football fan and have created a number of football articles.

Maybe I need to do more work of the section about "save our shakers".--Vintagekits (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a case of inherited notability in the usual sense of the term. Usually, "inherited notability" would mean that if X is notable, then *anything* related to X would be notable regardless of news coverage in multiple sources. Neville, on the other hand, does have news coverage in multiple sources, even if the context is often his children. If one relative of some celebrity is mentioned in the news a lot, and not some other relatives, that's an indication the one relative is notable and the other relatives are not. Joe Simpson (manager) is largely known in the context of his well-known relative(s), but he is mentioned often in that context, and other relatives are not. Neither of these are cases of inherited notability in the normal sense of the term. The arguments about context are close to saying a person must be notable independent of that for which he is notable, which is impossible. Gimmetrow 00:03, 21 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. — Scientizzle 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ford[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election. Only other claim to notability is that he's the son of a former congressman and the brother of another--but notability is not inherited. Blueboy 96 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can certainly be improved, but the individual is notable as a candidate for elective office and in this case his family does matter, they are considered prominent African-American politicians and while not quite the Kennedy's [34] they are recognized as such [35]. Awotter (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BIO--unsuccessful candidates for office aren't notable unless there can be another way to assert notability, and notability is not transferable. Blueboy 96 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - government & royalty are notable, unfortunatley he is neither. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a losing candidate for such an office might be notable if the race were exceptionally close, but this one wasn't. I agree with Blueboy concerning the other potential sources of notability. deranged bulbasaur 10:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mention in the campaign article is sufficient. Fails WP:BIO, and notability is not inherited from his political family. No article at this time, although I suspect this isn't the last we've heard of him. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he builds a history outside of politics and then runs, the totality of his career could be considered notable. Right now, he doesn't enough there. Montco (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per comments above. --Lockley (talk) 21:19, 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 Delete --JForget 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi technology[edit]

Consensus at deletion review was to send this here. Note that the current stub was written by Danny; see the history for the longer version. This version had been deleted as a copyright violation at one time, but permission has been cleared through OTRS. The content is not encyclopedic, however; whether the topic itself is should be judged in this forum. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, ad. JJL (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A1. It's NN and an ad, too. —Jonathan 01:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 doesn't apply, since contextualized versions exist in the history, and the DRV already concluded that a full debate was in order. I'd ask the closing admin to consider this a vote for simple "delete." Chick Bowen 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt has been made at any stage to demonstrate the notability of the product. The longer versions in the history were essentially pure spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it does not assert notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable piece of computer software for notability has not been established. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of either assertion or evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability is alleged nor proven. Corvus cornix_talk 18:40, 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 redirect to Chuck Palahniuk, we don't need to go through the bureaucracy of AfD for that. --Stormie (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChuckPalahniuk.net[edit]

We usually don't see authors' websites' articles, so I really don't think this is the same. This doesn't really seem notable, either. —Jonathan 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no claim of notability other then being kinda-attached to an author. Thus, Speedy Delete. -Carados (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuck Palahniuk. JJL (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JJL. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chuck Palahniuk, where it is briefly mentioned already. Some of this can actually be sourced to newspaper articles (this and this both mention the site and call it "The Cult"), but the main author page can cover it sufficiently. Zagalejo^^^ 01:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 07:08, 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. Cool Hand Luke 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Site[edit]

Was Proposed for Deletion, but I'm moving it to AfD since it's an old article and the creator and many of the major contributors no longer seem to be active - let's give it a proper discussion. --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD reason given by User:John Broughton is:

Site is non-notable, based on Google searches of the founder and the "foundation" which owns the website; website seems to be more a link/ad farm, not an encyclopedia; Open-Site Foundation, Inc. appears to have no Form 990 on file with guidestar.org, so I have doubts that this is in fact a non-profit, which makes this article even more of a pure promotional piece

Delete - for the reasons I gave at the prod, and because the article is unreferenced/unsourced, and has been tagged as such since February 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- acknowledged spinoff of Open Directory, helps keep our coverage of GFDL encyclopedias complete - David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what is the basis (source?) for saying it's a spinoff? For example, looking at this dmoz.org page, I see it's listed, along with Wikipedia, as a sister site. Also, if it's really a spinoff, then why not just a redirect to Open Directory Project, and a brief paragraph there? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Gerard's assertion probably doesn't have a source. Certainly, most of this article doesn't. I can find a source that says that the project was inspired by the Open Directory Project, which isn't quite the same: BADAN BARMAN (2007-02-02). "MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIAS BY USING GOOGLE CUSTOM SEARCH ENGINE VIA GOOGLE CO-OP" (PDF). 5th International CALIBER — 2007, Panjab University, Chandigarh, 08–10 February, 2007. p. 6.. But that's about the only independent source on this subject that I can find, and it doesn't support most of the content of this article. No-one apart from M. Barman, and of course the subject's own creator, has documented this subject at all. And M. Barman gave it just a paragraph in a list of on-line encyclopaedia projects. The primary independent documentation appears to be being done here, in Wikipedia, first, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if this project is not legally "tax exempt" yet does not mean this is not a non-profit project or a spam farm--even if their ads are poorly implemented. This project has been around a while, has a history, and has unique content. That said, this site is not a spam farm and is certainly notable. We've kept a lot less notable sites than this (regarding inclusion)...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflewoman (talk • contribs) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not be important now, but it once was, so it still is notable. DGG (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web) do you see the website as meeting? (Please be specific.) If you can't point to any specific criteria there, then are you defining "notability" in some other, non-standard way? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Well, we have an article for Citizendium--only real difference is that Citizendium has a few press releases and no ads. I'd say Citizendium is just as notable as Open-Site. Further, if you search just open-site.org on Google, you'll find that the site is quoted and referenced quite a bit legitimately. After some Googling I'd say this meets criteria items one and three.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.156.197 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your personal evaluation of notability is irrelevant. Notability is not subjective. Multiple non-trivial published works by sources independent of the subject demonstrate notability. You have not cited a single one. Counting Google hits is not research. Finding sources that discuss the subject in depth is research. Neither you, nor anyone who has edited the article, nor anyone who has argued here in favour of keeping it has done that. You certainly haven't made a case for the primary criterion being satisfied. You haven't even made a case for most of the content of this article not being original research — primary historical documentation being written first by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame nor importance. Notability is demonstrated by being noted. So far, we have one person independent of the subject who has ever written about it, who wrote 1 paragraph on it, and no sources at all for most of what this article says. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The project is of historical significance in that it was one of the early attempts at a free online encyclopedia. The article contains helpful background on it. It is interesting to compare its approach to that of WP which was growing up in about the same period and the contrasting results. Besides that, it's probably notable enough; seventh on Alexa's list of encyclopedias. Excluding it would seem to be an expression of the strain of Wikipedia partisanship which seems to color attitudes among some editors (not necessarily any involved in this afd). -R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove your assertion that the project is of historical significance by citing sources where this project has actually been documented in histories. I didn't find any. Sources! Sources! Sources! Arguments that something is historically significant without sources to show where historians have deemed it to be significant won't wash. Arguments that we should keep unsourced original research simply because a Wikipedia editor personally thinks the subject to be significant won't wash, either. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I have absolutely no proof to offer, sourced or not. All of the above was just my opinion (other than the Alexa reference). I had never heard of this Open Site thing until two days ago when I saw the name in passing. I looked over the site, then checked to see if WP had an article; it did, and it was informative and interesting. Since the article was better than I hoped for I was surprised to see it was up for AfD. I gave the situation some thought and put that down. The sort of wide range of overviews that WP provides is very useful and rather unique on the web; since WP is not paper and the cost of keeping the article is low, it seems that it would be a shame to throw this sort of useful article out. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't understand why this discussion is being held. I edit at the OEP as do many Wikipedia editors (past and present). The fact is that it is a small example of one possible form of an encyclopaedia whatever that term now means. No one (except maybe KNOL) can compete (if competition is the right concept for knowledge workers) with Wikipedia but there are people who like the notion of a controlled terminology or ontology to try to encapsulate small items of information. To exclude it seems to me to smack of arrogance or more likely someone who has a gripe against past editorial control. It is true we are struggling at present as many of our prolific editors have moved to Wikipedia but we still have some interested and active editors. It is part of the knowledge web and I am surprised that anyone would want to censor that. 58.174.160.27 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We're having the discussion because WP:V and WP:RS and WP:N essentially say that an article should have reliable sources, and where it does not, it's an indication that something isn't notable. Despite statements like if you search just open-site.org on Google, you'll find that the site is quoted and referenced quite a bit legitimately, above (and yes, I've looked), no one has added a single source to the article during this discussion. All there has been so far is hand-waving about importance and speculation about motives. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an editor at another project, you may not be familiar with our content policies. Our content policies are not to simply take without question whatever people write. Our content policies are that we don't document the heretofore undocumented; that we require that readers be able to check everything against outside reliable sources that have been published, fact checked, and peer reviewed; and that to warrant an article a subject must have been covered by multiple non-trivial published works from sources that are independent of the subject, so that we can write a properly verifiable, properly neutral, and full article on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP: Milarky! Verify it then, do not delete it! There is no reason to delete this article other than the fact that Open Site is a competitor. They may be far behind Wiki and not a current threat, but they are a credible and active encyclopedia. Just because it does not adhere to Wiki's guidelines or live up to Wiki's standards does not diminish the effort or minimalize it's signifigance. There have been a plethora of additions in recent months since the new editing format (Open Site 2.0) has been put in place and the forum is active daily. Please restore the article and your own credibility and move on.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Site" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.48.55 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a borderline case these days, but I'm swayed by the arguments above. It was a nascent competitor to Wikipedia in the early days that tried to do it through a much different system, and essentially failed. It was notable once, and thus, for our purposes, is still notable. References would be a plus, but it would be nice if the folks above who insist on patronising those supporting the article being kept would actually do some of their own research, rather than making wacky and ill-researched claims - a "link/ad farm"? What the hell? Rebecca (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's been a lot of hand-waving in this AfD about open-site's notability, but I have looked for sources and found none, and I notice that nobody who has called for the article to be kept has provided any either. Sorry, the keep votes all seem to be pure WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:INTERESTING. --Stormie (talk) 06:34, 23 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 transfer to Wikibooks. east.718 at 08:42, December 22, 2007

Import complete: b:The Book of Mathematical Proofs/Boy's surface – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy's surface/Proofs[edit]

A mathematical proof is not necessarily encylopedic. These involve some simple rearrangement of formula so not notable as an interesting/unusual proof. Salix alba (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete here is no reference to the proof, whilst true the proof does not meet wikipedia verifiability criteria and this particular proof could be original research. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Academic topics like this don't fit existing criteria very well, but I'd say that since the object itself is notable so too are its most important mathematical properties. I don't think subjective judgments of what's "interesting" or "unusual" enter in upon the determination. I also don't think proofs of non-trivial properties of non-trivial objects should ever be deleted. ~~The casual reader need not peruse these since they are on a subpage, after all.~~ Furthermore, the customary reasons that we sometimes curtail our coverage (POV, verifiability, etc.) don't really apply to pure knowledge subject domains like mathematics. deranged bulbasaur 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a subpage. At the top left of this AfD, you will see "< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion", because this page is a subpage. Now go to Boy's surface/Proofs and you will see there is no such link to Boy's surface. For all Wikipedia purposes, Boy's surface/Proofs is counted as a separate article which happens to have a forward slash in the title. A topic has to meet WP:N in order to have a separate article on it: it is not enough that it is connected to another notable topic. If you want a subpage, move this to Talk:Boy's surface/Proofs. Geometry guy 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about these 43 similar stand alone proofs then [36]? "This category contains all pages which provide mathematical proofs of adjunct mathematics and physics articles. It is currently an experimental vehicle to see how we might be able to provide proofs and details for math articles without cluttering up the main article itself. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs for current discussion. The idea is "experimental" in that its a proposal for one way that we might be able to deal with this. Pages in this category should generally be subpages of an article entitled ArticleName/Proof or ArticleName/Proofs." Nick mallory (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "experiment" has been running for more than two years. By and large the decent articles in the category are the ones with proper article titles, not the ones on the so-called subpages, because treating proofs as subpages discourages editors from writing coherent self-contained articles on them. Geometry guy 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to meet WP:N, since that's only a guideline. I readily admit that this doesn't meet it. What I am saying is that items like this constitute an exceptional case (probably the only one) for which the guideline isn't very helpful. deranged bulbasaur 12:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can just move pages across namespaces willy-nilly like that, else fully 80% of the band articles would end up as actual subpages in some obscure corner of the Portal namespace. deranged bulbasaur 12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against making general policy statements about articles on proofs. There is another AfD going on (for Totient function/Proofs) at which it is argued that proofs are not encyclopedic. I disagree: they can be. I similarly disagree that they should be a blanket exception to WP:N. If the proof is notable, write a decent article on it. If it is not, don't hide that fact by calling it a "subpage" or an "experiment". As for this particular case, it is rather shaky on WP:NOT as well. Geometry guy 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as Salix alba remarked, no encyclopaedic value here, and I don't even see any potential for it. Arcfrk (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proof was moved from the Boy's surface page, presumably because that article was getting too long. Boy's surfaces are one of those weird things which is almost impossible to imagine but can actually be made, in that they're single sided surfaces with no edges. It's bizarre, like a sort of 3d mobius strip, but any proof of their properties is certainly not trivial. I'm sure the nominator knows more maths than me but it seems to me that the mathematical proofs are an intrinsic part of the subject. It's as interesting to a mathematician or topologist as baseball statistics are to someone who likes baseball but if 'it's interesting' isn't a reason to keep then 'it's not interesting' can't be a reason to delete. Nick mallory (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This content could be transwikied or merged, but there is no case here for an independent article on WP. Geometry guy 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my more detailed remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs. I feel strongly that detailed proofs and proof articles have a place in Wikipedia, but only when a case can be made for the importance of the proof itself and not only of the fact that it proves; in other cases, references to sources with proofs or brief suggestions within the article about the nature of the proof are sufficient. So I think this should only be kept if sources can be found attesting to the value of the specific proofs presented here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory, though the article could use cleanup to address David Eppstein's points. Mathematics requires proofs; a better argument could be made to delete the main article than the proofs article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geometry Guy and David Eppstein. -- Dominus (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Shame to waste this much work on the grounds it's too trivial for an encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy%27s_surface/Proofs

Keep per Nick Mallory. As a non-expert in the field I found the proofs sufficiently elementary, informative and interesting that I would consider their inclusion in the article Boy's surface itself to be warranted. However, their sheer length means that they would clutter up the page and constitute a distraction to readers who don't want to be bothered reading them. In my opinion this article and the Totient function/Proofs article are perfect illustrations of why using pseudo-subpages for proofs can (sometimes) be A Good Idea. The function they serve is something like that of an extended footnote—namely, they provide extra information for the interested reader but can be ignored by those who don't wish to explore the topic to that level of depth. I don't find the arguments for deletion or merger based on the guideline WP:NOTE to be at all persuasive. The advantages of placing these lengthy proofs on a separate page that is accessed via a hyperlink from the main article seem to me to be eminently sufficient to be covered by the occasional exception clause of the guideline. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks:The Book of Mathematical Proofs per PMAnderson. Not in our scope, but it's in theirs. Gracenotes^T § 17:11, 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 Delete. — Scientizzle 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual resource partitioning[edit]

Not notable (4 Google hits on "virtual resource partitioning"). Ddxc (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising, and lack of references to show notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May well be advertising, but even it it's not, the subject is clearly non-notable. Tim Ross·^talk 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:07, 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. Sandstein (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searl Effect Generator[edit]

No reliable third party sources, only in-universe view, only fan fiction as source. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure. There is a serious verifiability problem, and science doesn't get much more fringe than this, but Searl's claims do have some presence on the internet, and increasingly that it being cited as a justification for retaining this kind of article. Perhaps merge with John Searl? LeContexte (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could certainly be improved, but I can't see any justification for bringing it to AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~. Alas, this isn't fiction. I guess it must be notable as free energy devices go, since it seems to be 50 years old. So keep. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (what the heck is a "speedy" keep?) - this is a well-known "energy" device. The article could be improved, but the current lack of improvement isn't a reason to delete. I agree with LeContexte above, both Searl Effect Generator and John Searl are short enough articles that they could be merged, although I'd probably merge the bio article into the device article, not the other way round, because the device is what makes Searl notable. I have therefore initiated a merge proposal on Talk:Searl Effect Generator. =Axlq (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands. Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original deletion rationale seems to be too terse. Let me elaborate a bit. Perpetual motion devices are fiction. As such, they are only in so far relevant to us, as they left significant traces in the real world, e.g. some million dollars from gullible investors vanished or a good enough publicity stunt by the inventors to get mainstream media coverage. It is not our business to mirror Free Energy websites like http://www.americanantigravity.com/, http://www.peswiki.com or the Naudin site. Even with constant purging of the most offending ones, we now again have more than 70 links to http://www.americanantigravity.com/! Isn't it mentioned in our policies to use unreliable sources only -- if at all -- in articles about themselves? The typical example given on policy pages tends to be stormfront.org, but in terms of unreliability americanantigravity.com is second to none. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are we better off having no article, or a short article which reflects the mainstream view that these things are bunk? In either case, trolls and the gullible will regularly reintroduce offending articles or content. LeContexte (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have reliable sources to debunk this nonsense specifically. It didn't get enough attention to produce any citable source specifically targetting it. If you, as a Wikipedia author, try to inject rationality into articles about such non-famous nonsense, you are always an easy target for the hardcore NOR/CITE faction -- which by now has managed to turn NOR a full 180 degrees compared to the reason it was invented a long time agon --Pjacobi (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for a significant number of articles propounding fringe theories of science, history, religion, politics (and, in all likelihood, pokemon). So, what do we do? LeContexte (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abort, retry, ignore? as a leading operating system phrases it? Wikipedia has grown tentacles into non-encyclopedic topics. we can ignore them, or we can we try and try again to fight it, or we can think about a fork. --Pjacobi (talk) 14:18, 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 delete. Doc^g 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Tobin[edit]

This subject is of borderline notability, imo. I just don't know if it notable enough, or not.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 00:22, 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.