Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 18 December 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. No assertion of notability is made, nor is a reliable source provided to verify. (The only source was from blogspot.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefania Podgorska[edit]

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

Is she notable ? thisisace (talk) 22:10, 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 and redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo. Any relevant information can be included in that article. There simply aren't the third party reliable sources that single out this individual for notability justifying the article. Tyrenius (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullah Khalik[edit]

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

I fail to see why this prisoner is notable. Guantanamo Bay detention camp's notability doesn't mean that each prisoner gets their own Wikipedia article. I find it analogous to making an article for each prisoner held at Rikers Island. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Geo Swan (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disclaimer -- I created this article, just a few hours ago.
    • I strongly disagree with the nominator, on all his points.
    • No offense, the comparison with Rikers Island is spurious. Rikers Island contains men who have been charged or convicted of crimes. Charging, prosecuting, and acquitting or convicting suspects is a well-understood and generally non-controversial process. Very, very few Rikers convicts will stir world-wide controversy. While the captives at Guantanamo, with less than a dozen exceptions, are not only not convicts, they have not been charged with a crime.
    • As captives go, the Uyghur captives in Guantanamo, like Saidullah Khalik, are among the most controversial. There is a wide discrepancy among commentators as to the extent to which they might be pro-USA innocent bystanders.
    • I believe this article fully complies with all wikipedia policies.
      • Please don't confuse Guantanamo Bay detention camp and it's detainees. Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unquestionably notable; it's detainess aren't.
      • There are people world-wide that are being held without charges. Being held without charges (unfortunatly) doesn't make you notable.
      • It would be most reasonable to redirect to Uyghur captives in Guantanamo.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes extrajudicial detention is a world-wide phenomenon. With very few exceptions those captives held in extrajudicial detention are victims of totally closed, repressive, totalitarian regimes. With very few exceptions the closed and repressive nature means we don't know about most of these captives. For the exceptional cases, when we do know about the captives, where there are verifiable, reliable sources, I believe those case merit coverage. For the exceptional cases where the captives held in extrajudicial detention are being held by a country that is not generally considered a closed, repressive, totallitarian torture state, I believe that merits coverage. A side effect of this is that there might be more coverage of the exceptional cases held by relatively open societies, and relatively less coverage of those countries with no open press and ineffective judiciaries. But I don't see that as a good reason to suppress material that cites valid sources and complies with all wikipedia policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this guy can make Uncle Sam shit his pants in fear, surely that's pretty notable. Mykej (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing notable about this person and comments about 'Uncle Sam' soilings his pants are less than helpful. Nick mallory (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was puzzled by this comment. I re-read the article. I decided it needed more work to spell out what is unusual about Saidullah Khalik's detention.
    • The Bush Presidency asserts the Guantanamo captives enjoy an unprecedented level of review of whether they should continue to be detained.
    • There has been a formal review procedure, since August 2004. All captives are supposed to have a CSR Tribunal confirm whether they were "enemy combatants", and they are supposed to have annual Administrative Review Boards recommend whether they should be released or transferred, or continue to be held in detention.
    • However about as many captives have been released -- even though their Boards recommended continued detention, as have been released because their Boards recommended release. And, even though their Boards recommended release, those captives largely remained in captivity for years afterwards. Approximatly 40 of the 133 captives officially cleared for release of transfer in early 2005 remain in captivity in late 2007.
    • Saidullah Khalik is an example of a different, related phenomenon. The rules require a Board to convene, once a year, to make a recommendation as to whether he should be released. The record shows no Boards convened. Yet, he remains in detention. One of the clauses of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- John McCain's bill explicitly barring the use of torture -- was intended to explicitly strip from captives the right to initiate new habeas corpus petitions in the US civil court system. It replaced this with a clause to allow captives to request a more limited review in courts in Washington DC -- but only of whether the DoD followed its own rules in its CSR Tribunals and ARB hearings.
    • Is Saidullah Khalik a candidate for the DC courts reviewing whether the DoD followed its own rules? In the absence of authoritative commentators writing about his case, our readers will have to make up their own minds as to whether or not the DoD has not complied.
    • That he was supposed to have been reviewed in 2005 and 2006 is verifiable, and belongs in the article. That those reviews didn't take place is also verifiable, and also belongs in the article. Obviously this information can't be covered if the whole article is deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- there is a whole lot of Guantanamo Bay detainees with individual articles. See Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees Guroadrunner (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The US government has said that Guantanamo is only used for "the worst of the worst". That means every prisoner is of the same notoriety as Al Capone or Bonnie and Clyde. Now you may or may not agree with the US government, but it's at least noteworthy that they think this. When an organization that has nuclear weapons offers an opinion you don't have to agree, but you should give them a listen. Mykej (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless there's something I've overlooked, there's nothing about this particular Guantanamo inmate that warrants an article about him when there is already an article about the ethnic group of which he is a member. In other words, his situation is exactly the same as that of the other Uyghurs, as far as I can see from the two articles. The situation of the Uyghurs in Guantanamo as a group appears notable, but precisely why this one man is notable beyond and above that is something I can't work out. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every individual person there is notable, at least in his home country--the acts giving them notability was not in most cases engaging (or not engaging) in the conflict, but being the victims of an action which has attracted world-wide attention, and where everyone who has been there will be considered a martyr by one country or other large group.. At present we have trouble sourcing that end of things, due to cultural, linguistic, and source availability limitations. But they just have to be sourceable, and the basis is already here. DGG (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The detention at GB is likely to be most of the person's life, not a one-time event. And yes, I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent. DGG (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Guantanamo Bay detention camp article it states in the header: "Of the roughly 355 still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest." That is very believeable considering that the camp at one point had 750 prisoners. Why don't we, therefore, wait until they are stuck there for a long time. Until then, it's a WP:BLP1E.
  • I had a hard time understanding your last comments. "I think at least the individual ones from his particular country will be notable in that country, and N is worldwide and permanent." That sounds contradictory. Am I missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:19, 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 speedy delete (A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Werrell (Musician)[edit]

Brandon Werrell (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article includes no reliable sources to verify notability, and a google search on this person's name results in a surprising 0 hits. Even I have more google hits than this musician? That's surprising enough to make me suspect a hoax. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 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. Daniel 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manpool[edit]

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

Contested PROD. At first glance it looked like WP:MADEUP, but it doesn't. There are a few relevant ghits, not enough however to establish real notability. Delete, man. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rjlohan (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Can verify this game exists, and is rapidly gaining popularity. I've just played in a sponsored tournament in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. My $50 loss is real. :-( The game started as a small promotion, but took off quickly in nearby bars and pubs. Rjlohan 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely original research. Local notability isn't established, but even if it were -- it's only local. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't care if you lost a million dollars, this is completely non-notable. If you do make it notable by the end of the week, I may change my mind. —BoL @ 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT/WP:N unless in the unlikely event of third-party references on this variation of pool.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - not yet notable Guroadrunner (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources verifying the content. Rt. 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and comments here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom GtstrickyTalk or C 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:17, 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. Wizardman 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Bell[edit]

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

A girl who made the news for throwing a party that caused damage to her house. True, the event received news coverage, but nothing else has come from it since. 15 minutes of fame are over. Jmlk17 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, utterly without significance. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Also appears to run contrary to WP:BLP1E. hat said, she expected "only 60" teens to attend a party when the parents were absent, but was surprised when it turned into a yob-a-palooza? The most surprising thing is that 7 police cars arrived in the midst of the event and the officers did nothing to stop it. No prejudice against recreating if it somehow gains a higher significance than one-off mischief. Agree with the "15 minutes of fame" comment by Jmlk17. Not every "water-cooler story" which gets a splash of publicity deserves an encyclopedia article forever. Edison (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a textbook example of what WP:BLP1E was written for.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. In no way is she worth a biography per WP:BLP1E and the event of the house-trashing is not encyclopedic information per WP:NOT#NEWS. Alternatively transwiki to Wikinews if this has not been done so already, but it's old news so may not be suitable for them... I don't know much about Wikinews's policies and guidelines.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasspeedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Z.E.B.R.A.[edit]

Z.E.B.R.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy was originally proposed, but the original editor said "Its qualified under fiction but sources and citations will be posted soon." None of the sources make clear what fiction universe this group is from. Accordingly, this is a non-notable fictional group with no sources to verify its existence. Without knowing whose works this group appears in, it's not even possible to redirect it to the article on the book series, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur wholeheartedly. This may someday fall under the guises of an aspect of notable fiction, but as it stands currently, no. Mhudson3 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. It is fictional but not so that it would qualify for an article. The article concludes "All information provided by Z.E.B.R.A. members Chris DeCastro, Brian Long, and Lucas Sullivan" so definitely original research. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just hoax vandalism. The article claims that Ghostbusters was a documentary about ghosts in America, for starters. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not a hoax. I'm Pete McDonald one of the legendary brothers. Every word of this is the truth. Its called an underground society, jeez read a book one in a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.218.68 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]


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

The result was Keep per information that arose since the nomination (non-admin closure) brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Alternative Music Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Assuming that it's notable at this time, there's a WP:NOTNEWS problem. This is a one time conferernce that in a year from now will be forgotten. Nothing in the article suggests that the conference will have a substantial and lasting impact on Latin Alternative music. In addition, that article seems a bit too much WP:SPAMMY. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's been going 8 years, not just one year. I've added a couple of sources for notability. The whole article is spammy but could be rewritten. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to me all this needed was a few refs to show independent coverage (now added), and copyediting for a more neutral tone (still needed). No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's been going on for 8+ years, then it's NOT WP:NOT#NEWS. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:19, 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. Wizardman 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calum Callaghan[edit]

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

Delete NN actor Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability unestablished and unsourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a hoax but a poorly written stub with no sources and nothing in there which suggests that he is notable enough for a biography.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable biography. --Lockley (talk) 21:44, 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 Nomination withdrawn --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Lloyd Rains[edit]

Darby Lloyd Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:BIO, and no significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn She is a member of the XRCO Hall of Fame so passes WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 12:12, 25 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 Although notability is usually not inherited, this is clearly an important part of the franchise. GlassCobra 09:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Nublar[edit]

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

This article is an in-universe plot repetition of plot points from the various Jurassic Park stories, and has no notability or referencing of its own, and as such its just total duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jurassic Park. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the origin of this article, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Merger would be inadvised, as without primary sources, this would be moving this problem elsewhere.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is the setting of a major novel, film, comic, and video game and can easily be verified by a multitude of sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this island was the setting of multiple different works of fiction by multiple different authors and in multiple different media. The Jurassic Park franchise is of undisputable notability and this is a major part of that setting. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the whole franchise does not give this small part of it notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:47, 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.


Non admin closure. The result was redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Topless Sun Tanning[edit]

Topless Sun Tanning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability. Subject matter is already covered in suntanning and other articles and there isn't sufficient information to justify a seperate article. Pharmboy (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Current article seems to be purely original research as well. Pharmboy (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If this is already covered, it should be deleted or possibly merged.cf38talk 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks any notability. Not really deserving of its own article. ScarianTalk 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should be merged into suntanning. Andareed (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the full color illustration was a nice touch, but this is not encyclopedic. The title kind of says it all. Mandsford (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Suntanning or Toplessness Much though I like the illustration, this isn't really needed here. Covered already elsewhere, this can only result in a duplication of info. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Suntanning. As for the picture, I wonder if the person who submitted it obtained model releases from the females shown topless? Though it is not grounds for deletion I note the presence of such high quality writing as "Some woman want to attract a mate by showing off they're breats." Edison (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic poorly written original research with no sources and a subject that in itself, independently appears to fail WP:N. Redirecting to suntanning would also be acceptable. Nice bit of WikiPorn there in the image used... or not.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Suntanning or Toplessness The article provide little context and fewer sources. Besides, better pictures could have been added. Alansohn (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The picture illustrating it would seem hard to improve on, but of course additional examples would be helpful for those having trouble mastering the concept. Edison (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better angles and additional images would be helpful for those trying to better master the concept. While in general a picture is worth a thousand words, here it could save somebody a few dollars. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 09:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronit Herzfeld[edit]

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

Non-notable "life coach" and activist. Nothing on Google News, only 81 Google hits, and I can't find any that are reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Couldn't find any sources that meet WP:RS, looks pretty much like a WP:VANITY piece to me. Pharmboy (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently no verifiable RS. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 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 Keep. While there is certainly debate about the format, current state, referencing and possibly name of the article (all just requiring cleanup tags and editing) ; the consensus about the subject is to keep - (non-admin closure) Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish counties by area[edit]

List of Scottish counties by area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was up for WP:PROD. It was proded for the following reasons: "has been tagged unreferenced for well over a year", "does not give year the data was captured" and "numbers are claimed to be unreliable on talk page". I could have just deleted it, but I didn't feel that it was something that could be removed without a full discusion first. That isn't the sort of thing that can simply be proded, imo, because there are many articles (and lists) for which such problems are true, and to delete them all would be ludicracy. I personally don't have an opinion on this; I present it to you to reach a consensus on what to do next. However, I suspect, unless anyone has some great plan, this will require deletion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - would require getting editors with an interest together and agreeing on the numbers. Going by the talk page it is not like this is a list of numbers someone has made up themselves, there are valid and acceptable sources being batted about - there are just minor disagreements on some of the exact figures, mostly on very large rural counties where an acre here or there is easily up for debate because it is on the side of a deserted mountain or some such reason. Don't see any reason to delete - as list topics go this one seems far more valid than some of the random junk that passes for lists - Lists of made up star wars characters or List of green smurfs being the type of thing that are often kept. SFC9394 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've never seen a geography article that measures the area of a political subdivision in acres. How bizarre. "Hoot mon, that's a big farm ye have there, Angus". Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks a year from when the measurements are taken, like List of counties of England by area in 1831. No sources are given for the data at all. It also excludes counties of cities without explanation. MRSC • Talk 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why not hit the edit button and rewrite as per the talk page, and hit the rename button and rename the article so that it has the appropriate year in its title? You did these two things for List of English historic counties by area. An administrator hitting a delete button isn't required to fix the problems that you are pointing out. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the counties change size over the years or something? Mandsford (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right, OK, I can tell you that these counties are now mostly historical, and that they have either been renamed, merged or changed their boundaries to become Scottish council areas, which we have a list of at List of Scottish council areas by area. I'll say keep here as geography and history-related lists are far more encyclopedic than fictional fancruft and the like.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we cannot have an article full of statistics without clearly defining what units are being presented, and from which historical time period. What comprised a former 'county' in Scotland changed throughout the relatively brief period when they were used as local government units. And where are the required refs? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Mais oui! (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Counties of Scotland. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 10:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The equivalent article on England is based on the 1831 census. It was written at the same date and by the same author, so that it is likely to have the same source. Unfortunately, the sources for the English article do not include the Scottish data (as far as I can find), though it is certainly in the original publication. Counties can change in area due to boundary changes. There may also be a probelm of measuring them, as to how much foreshore to include. All that is needed is for some one to discover the source and cite it. No need to delete, certainly not while the equivalent English articel survives. Its counties underwent much greater changes due to the abolition of detached places and otehr boundary changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Scotland article does not come from the same source. The talk pages reveal it is original research from a variety of publications over a range of years. Furthermore, the England article was amended to be based on the census of 1831. MRSC • Talk 13:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is unacceptable as it is, but it should not be a huge effort to provide the relevant data for the pre-1975 counties at least. I'll put in a ref as show of good faith. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eh!? So you have corrected and provided a reference for one of those figures, but not the rest? What year is that for? MRSC • Talk 19:16, 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 Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BarbieGirls.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB; unsourced. Also: administrator "Can't sleep" redirected this page to Barbie three months ago and was reverted. I think he had the right idea. Also: the original author, Rinku11 (talk · contribs), has few other edits and may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I would agree that "Can't sleep..." had the right idea, but it may warrant a one-line mention when merged. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete I don't see enough justification (notability) for the article as a stand alone. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable in the world of pre-teen girls, believe me. I believe that sources can be found to confirm that this is popular, and that there is a feeling among parents and educators that the internet site is an acceptable means for introducing girls to computers. Granted that neither you nor I (nor most Wikipedians, sorry) played with Barbie dolls, but like "Bratz", it's popular with a large group of consumers. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a significant brand-oriented site. If it should be redirected it ought to be to Barbie Girls, which is the name of the brand extension (Bratz-like stuff), which we do not have an article on or even a real mentino in Barbie.[1][2][3] --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Dhartung's good research work but it does, definitely, require major cleanup.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multiple links cited by Dhartung. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly a notable website. I was the one who reverted that redirect: the main Barbie article said nothing about this website, and even if it had, the site warrants the more extensive coverage possible in a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 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. Singularity 07:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seone Nuku'olafa[edit]

Seone Nuku'olafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ()

A non-notable actor, known for appearing in one advertisement where he sings one line. The article is entirely unsourced and a google search does not find anything relevant, even when using what I suspect is the correct spelling of his name - Nuku'alofa. The article has a work in progress tag but with the best will in the world, I cannot see this article managing to assert notability.

A previous speedy (by another editor) was denied, therefore it is listed here. Mattinbgn\talk 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting part about the above comment is the observation that a google search does not find anything relevant. Being a valued member of Wikipedia, I would have thought objectivity in one's analysis of sources would be one of the cornerstones of research.

As useful as the internet -and including wikipedia, may be for such searches, all knowledge, wisdom and information does not reside solely on the internet. Hence, this point should not be taken into account in order to assess the validity of this article.

As this is a work in progress, verifiable sources are in the process of being made available online. Not being able to devote one's time solely to editing new wikipedia articles, this process does take a little time.

Seone, for those in the know, is not only known for one advertisement -even though a high proportion of the population will be familiar with him for this reason. It is for his work with Maori and Polynesian communities in Australia for which this article will build satisfy concerns of notability. In addition to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankstar 79 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is no requirement that sources are online - they simply must be verifiable. Such as an interview in Rolling Stone magazine.Garrie 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all sources shown to date are self-published by his employer, his church or the company running a competition he entered in with very little success. So none of them lend weight to claims of notability. Not every advertising actor is notable, including this one.Garrie 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont believe it is very notable or all that useful. What wikipedia is not . Kingpomba (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the nom, he's appeared in one ad campaign - hardly the mark of a notable actor. The rest of it is barely even worth mentioning; auditioning for Australian idol and going to church hardly confer notability. If he's notable for other reasons, it should be easy to come up with sources, but as they seem to be in short supply here, I'm going to have to endorse deletion. Lankiveil (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, This may sound a little unwikipedic, but I'm agreeing with this Lankstar fellow. I specialise in underground cultures, sub-cultures and people that run against the grain in general, and targeting an article for deletion on the above basis does raise certain questions in my mind. To me it seems like its the 'have' and 'have not' argument here. On one hand there is the argument that because of the lack of availability of secondary sources through quite limited web searches etc, the article is not notable. As none here seem to be SME's on the topic, and unfamiliar with the sub-culture Seone may be in, I would strongly suggest that this article be allowed to develop. 122.105.140.41 (talk).
  • Comment As is the case with the creator of the article, Lankstar79 (talk · contribs), the only edits made by this IP are to the article and this discussion. The editors should be aware that canvassing and sockpuppetry are frowned on by the Wikipedia community. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells of promotion, and is completely unsourced. Checked local/state newspapers using Factiva and got nowhere. Orderinchaos 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alarmingly non-notable - why on earth was this article created? The only claim to notability is that Seone Nuku'olafa is a rising star, which seems to be crystal-ball gazing, especially as it is uncited. If he is in fact a rising star the article can be re-created after he obtains fame - and has some reliable sources written about him. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:17, 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 speedy delete as nonsense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kymtendo[edit]

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

No notability at all, GS returns virtually nothing relevant. Lots of POVl (and OR?) prior to my most recent cleanup edit. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:54, 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 Redirected to My December per WP:MUSIC, this can alsways be reversed if it gains independent notability. BLACKKITE 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Song is not a single, it is wishful thinking, a page is not required for it Alankc (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect to My December, logical choice for a song that doesn't deserve its own page. Also redirect How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson) to My December to prevent a double redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? What reader is going to enter this exact title into the search box? Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that there is a strong possibility it will be released as a single means that there is a good chance someone who knows Wikipedia documents most singles individualy will type it in, IMO. Besides, a redirect is harmless, and if only one user is redirected, it will have done some good. There's a guidline on that somewhere, I'll add it here if I can find it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't. I suspect it's probably merged somehwere. Basicly, it aid redirects should generally be put in place wherever possible unless they are directly harmful. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You haven't answered the question. What reader is going to enter "How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song)" into the search box? Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • One who saw it wasn't at How I Feel but some other song has been disambiguated in this way. They might assume that by typing the above in, instead of following the link to the album, they could get to the song. We may as well make life easier for them. Also, they may know of other songs disambiguated in this manner and thus type it in directly; often song articles are written at titles that disambiguate unnesesariliy. Hey, on the side, you gotta apreciate the funny side of two editor arguing over such an unimportant point, huh? ;-) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • A reader who reached How I Feel by typing "How I Feel" into the search box would follow the disambiguation headnote pointing to the article to read (assuming that 76.109.54.18 (talk · contribs) hasn't misguidedly edited it out again in the meantime). Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's no need for the link, or this artcile, have any of you even read it? The article itself is nothing but a crystal ball, and promotion for a fansite project. The referacnes are links to myspace pages, not actual resources. It clearly vilates wikipedia standards in more than one way. You all just love to argue and debate way too much. 76.109.54.18 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against re-creation when this is Clarkson's next single, and charts as such. See WP:CRYSTAL. Keeper | 76 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If a release date had been anounced, and it was sometime soon, I might have waited until then to see if anything happened right off, and then decided, but in this case we have no idea. No issues with allowing it to return when the subject is notable. See WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note: the article itself says it's all based on RUMORS and promoting a project from a fansite. if i'm not mistaken, that goes against everything about wikipedia. Even the referances are just links to myspaces and the site, which is promotion, not referance. it's clearly self=-promoting a fansite (and myspaces) and definatley falls under crystal ballism. what's the debate all about? 76.109.54.18 (talk) 23:38, 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. GlassCobra 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South African cricket team in India in 2007-08[edit]

South African cricket team in India in 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this is premature at best; WP:CRYSTAL, and WP is not a repository of everything that has been, is, or ever will be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless a reliable source can be found to shown this tour is actually happening. What I can find says South Africa are going to Bangladesh, not India next year. If it is going to happen, keep the article: either the tour will happen (and be notable) or it won't, which will also be notable --Pak21 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Genuine tour. Either it will happen (and be noteworthy) or it won't (which will also be noteworthy). Three months isn't too much crystal balling. --Pak21 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a genuine tour, see this page on the ICC future tours programme at cricinfo [4] for example. The nominator could have found and added this source in ten seconds if he'd looked for it. It's not 'crystal' either, if it's in the FTP then it's going to happen, baring some political disaster and it's scheduled for March 2008 - in three months time. Test tours, although shorter than they used to be, are still notable sporting events by anyone's definition. Nick mallory (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Test tours are the top of the tree when it comes to cricket, and this is (as others have said) guaranteed to happen. It looks like a sorry excuse for an article at present, but that's going to change pretty soon, I think you'll find. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this warrants an article of its own; I'm fairly sure that the tour won't get a play-by-play analysis; I'm not sure why a section can't be made on the South African cricket team page instead. Of course, I could be wrong. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you're wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a more helpful vein, I'd imagine (having been involved in the copyediting of a few of them) that something like this would be the end result. There are articles like this on most recent Test series, generally due to I believe the prominence of any tour and also to the fact that keeping it on the relevant team's page would make some exceedingly long articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:17, 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 Snowball keep/withdrawn by nominator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istro-Romanian grammar[edit]

Istro-Romanian grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unecnyclopedic. More of a grammar guide/glossary, which wikipedia is not. For now, it is unreferenced, but although that can be fixed, the article would need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What it needs is cleanup which AFD is not. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments. I don't think however that the article needs anything less than a complete rewrite, or I wouldn't have brought it to AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cleanup tag for a complete rewrite is {{cleanup-rewrite}} not {{subst:afd1}}. Please read Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. This is Articles for deletion. Do not bring articles here where an administrator hitting a delete button isn't the solution to the problem. Even editors without accounts have all of the tools necessary for rewriting articles. Uncle G (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nom's concerns are invalid. I agree with Uncle G here, the article needs cleanup not rewriting. I've placed a {{rewrite}} tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that this is a snowball keep. In my personal judgement I still think it should be deleted, but it makes no sense to let this AfD continue. Instead, I'll go take another long look at other articles and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DxO Labs[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Although only a small stub, it seems to have a somewhat large company in France. I think we should keep and expand a bit.   jj137 ♠ 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The burden of proof is on those who wish to keep, to provide evidence of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete withoutindependent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability. The onus, as stated by Shalom, is on the article's contributors to show notability. Keeper | 76 21:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Changing to keep per independent, reliable sources added. All better. Keeper | 76 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added this article because I learned from a professional photographer that it was a leading image-processing software company. It was a stub because I don't know much about them. I have added some independent sources to the article which document their notability both for consumer and for OEM software. --Macrakis (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Browse the table of contents of any photo magazine and it'll come up. I've added three. Fg2 (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel McGoff[edit]

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

Non-notable person; redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guylan Qudsieh but now recreated without any additional sign of notability. While I'm sure the creator will be along to point out that there are many similar articles on Wikipedia, the fact still remains that this person has no notability from sources outside Kid Nation Pak21 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems notable enough. --Pmedema (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the length, the referencing, the various examples... in the grand Wiki scale of notability, Laurel McGoff is hardly on the low end of it. If we're going to go after non-notable articles, let's start with things like fuzzy dice and online wedding instead first.
Comment - I was always told that new comments go at the bottom, so I re-arranged this back the way it should be... considering that the above is the order in which comments were left.
Comment2 - as has been said: "Comparing reality "stars" to reality "stars"... Laurel has a basic one-page article with five references and three external links. She has been a major player in the [[Kid Nation] show and appeared in every episode (actually, featured in every episode). Contrasting that with Earl Cole, Andria "Dreamz" Herd, and Yau-Man Chan, all from the reality show Survivor: Fiji. Cole has an equally short article with only one reference and no external links (even though he won!), Dreamz has five references and one external link in a slightly larger article (at least enough to not be deemed a stub), and Yau-Man, who has the most descriptive article (and was probably the best of these contestants from the few episodes I caught that season), runs with four references and two external links. So, I wonder, how are any of these three notable and Laurel is not? While each of these Survivor contestants is notable solely for that appearance, Laurel (using her as an example as she is the strongest candidate for a Wiki article of the ones created thus far) has performed in other major productions (not nationally, but locally/regionally). And it's referenced. Really I would think that this article, though still growing and expanding, would serve as the model for Kid Nation individual pages for whoever ends up "deserving" them. Just a thought."
Comment3 - Yes, I will be here to say that tons of pages just like this exist. Before anyone starts with OSE, remember that essays are opinions and nothing more. The simple fact is that if we are going to be deleting pages because the subject only has 5, 10, however-many references, only has 3, 5, however-many sections, only demonstrates 2, 4, however-many appearances or performances, that notability is only regional/national/international, or whatever else, we would eliminate half of Wikipedia. Is this our goal?
Comment3a - The simple fact is that this article has been very well referenced. It is lengthier than a typical stub. It has more notability than the average stub. It is in accordance with the average reality series contestant. The only reason I can see for the continued attempts at deletion of an article like this is the participant's age; a young person could not possibly be important or notable, right? (The only other option for the illogical deletion attempts is less palatable, so I assume good faith.) Bottom line is that this contestant has performed, is at least regionally notable before Kid Nation, and with Kid Nation is now nationally and perhaps even internationally known. How is that non-notable? VigilancePrime (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with associated Cleanup to List of Kid Nation participants. While notability has been demonstrated, it is primary due to her participation in Kid Nation, not for her other aspects. I believe that one can achieve a higher quality article by grouping all the notable (outside of KN) participants into a single article (without losing information) than to have separate articles for each notable one. Until such a time that any of the kids becomes the next Dakota Fanning and that notability exceeds what Kid Nation gives them such that a separate article makes more sense, keeping them all together in one article provides a more consistent approach. --MASEM 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into List of Kid Nation participants. This is not based on Laurel's age. Yes, she got in the newspaper. Yes, she has a page on CBS.com. Yes, she has a page on TV.com. Yes, she was in a local play. Does that establish notability? No. Anything related to CBS is out because it's not independent of the subject. A page on TV.com/IMDB cannot establish notability because it is a trivial mention. Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page. And finally, the local newspaper and local play are out because, again, it's a list of names. That's a trivial mention. In short, per WP:N, none of the references establish notability. And this is close to a G4 speedy because it isn't substantially changed from the last AfD. Just keep Laurel in List of Kid Nation participants. And, finally, VigilancePrime, we shouldn't go for Fuzzy dice first, and length of an article or number of references isn't necessarily a reason to keep an article. NF24(radio me!) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think it's funny how you seem to be using the same argument that you're telling VigilancePrime not to use. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explicitly states:
"Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should".
In other words, invoking the "other stuff does not exist" argument by saying, "Not everyone who is on TV has a Wikipedia page" is just as bad as using the "other stuff exists" argument. Of course not everyone on TV has a Wikipedia page and not everyone on TV deserves one because not everyone who makes it onto TV becomes famous. We're not saying that Laurel McGoff deserves a Wikipedia article simply because she's been on TV, we're saying that she deserves a Wikipedia article because she's famous, the fact that she gained her fame because she was on TV is not important. I'd say that MOST people who are famous today wouldn't be as famous if there was no such thing as TV. Ospinad (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-sourced article, subject meets the notability criteria. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per Pmedema and Videmus Omnia. This one definitely stands on its own. DoubleVibro (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but Delete - If it's decided again that Laurel still doesn't deserve her own article then there's no reason why all the information there has to be lost since it can just be merged into List of Kid Nation participants. Also, I have to say that I think the reason why her article keeps getting nominating for deletion is because some people are misunderstanding what "independent of the subject" means. Because Laurel has a biography on CBS.com doesn't mean that CBS and Laurel aren't independent of each other anymore than an actor with a page on IMDb isn't independent of IMDb just because he has a page on IMDb. In other words, saying that any fame that Laurel may have gained from being on Kid Nation automatically doesn't count, simply because she was on Kid Nation doesn't make any sense. Laurel is famous mainly because she was on Kid Nation, that's true, but that doesn't fall under "self-published" material simply because Kid Nation wasn't Laurel's creation. Kid Nation was CBS's creation. Besides, there's no rule that says a person needs to gain sufficient notability in at least TWO separate areas before they can be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. If she's done only one thing to make her famous but that one thing was enough to make her well known to millions of people then there's no reason why she still needs to do something else to prove she's famous. Ospinad (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She doesn't have to be notable for two different things. What I'm saying is that none of the references provided can establish notability per WP:N. All the references are either trivial lists of names or a page on TV.com (which doesn't necessarily prove notability in its own right; it just proves that the subject was on TV and that cannot establish notability) or pages on CBS.com which are disqualified because they are not considered independent from the subject. NF24(happy holidays!) 23:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't understand how someone can be featured prominently in every episode of a TV show that was watched by millions of people every week and still be considered non-notable. Ospinad (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... I wonder how many hundreds (or maybe even thousands) of BLP articles more we'd have to worry about if we had article on every reality show contestant. We have many Survivor articles, but every person doesn't need one. Laurel has some references, but most are somewhat trivial or are CBS. There is no reason why this can't be merged to the participant list. Reywas92Talk 20:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nice try, but your so-called analogy is flawed and, in point of fact, only reaffirms the significants of this article. We are not listing an article for every participant. In truth, only 1 in 40, that's 2.5% of participants, and one of the ones who was awarded in the show, and one who was prominently featured in every episode. This is on the scale of a page for the winner of Survivor seasons. As has been pointed out above, many reality show contestants have their own page even if they didn't win. Survivor is a great example. If Survivor averages two contestant pages per season, that's more than 11% of all participants. With your analogy logic, we should have 8-9 articles. We're looking at a single, notable, highly recognizable character in a nationally-televised, well-rated show. That is, by definition, notability. I agree we shouldn't have a page for everyone! Laurel clearly should have her own. In the long run, a couple others probably should as well, maybe. Anyway, I appreciate your reasoning, but that reasoning only lends credence to keeping the article in question. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion may be moot and OBE. User:Pak21's page indicates that he had decided to exit the scene temporarily. As he is the nominator for AfD, I submit that this article should be removed from the AfD list. DoubleVibro (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. An AfD cannot be speedy closed because the nominator is temporarily inactive. You can read the speedy close criteria at WP:CSK, but in short, they are 1) The nomination is withdrawn or the nomination is to merge, move, or perform another non-deletion-related action 2) The nomination is in bad faith (such as Derek Jeter or Coca-Cola) 3) The nominator is banned 4) The page is a policy or guideline. NF24(happy holidays!) 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer this one play out anyway, so that when it's all over and the page is kept, the article will have the "survived AfD" tag. Just a thought... VigilancePrime (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]
Don't get your hopes up yet. Though this article will most likely be kept, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and arguments that the closing admin feels invalid can be thrown out. If there are 12 "keep" !votes that are all WP:ILIKEIT but there are two well-thought-out "delete" !votes, the AfD will probably be closed as "delete" or "no consensus". Now I'm not saying that any of the !votes here are ILIKEIT, in fact it appears, again, that the article will be kept. NF24(happy holidays!) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Kid Nation participants. I wasn't on Kid Nation, but I've been on the Honor roll and my name was published, and there are multiple web pages referencing me. The last four refs are all the CBS Kid Nation site, the first two are simple profiles, and the second two are local news. This somewhat condenses into three refs. Anayway, I see absolutely no reason this cannot be merged into the above article. Reywas92Talk 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep I dislike reality TV and Kid Nation in particular, but given this shows popularity, I think the information should be kept around. As a note, I'm getting 1,720 ghits, which seems low for anything so popular at the moment. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 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. Wizardman 03:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirado Black Warrior[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article without any indication why this pencil is notable, per WP:N - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It does exist and there is lots of references... but to have an article just for this pencil seems a bit over the top... --Pmedema (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two short sentences and no references whatsoever. Also, I think it is a little ridiculous to have an article on a "popular brand of pencil".   jj137 ♠ 21:07, 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.   jj137 ♠ 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Note: Talk:Wendy Wu 2 re-created and updated. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wu 2[edit]

Wendy Wu 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version at time of AFD nomination: This was previously deleted via expired PROD 29 Aug 2007; that version has been restored as a subpage of this one to allow non-admins access to the content. The present version has at one reliable source versus 0 in the earlier version (the movieweb article is republication of the Variety news item). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until the movie actually exists. Production companies change their minds all the time, and Wikipedia is not into the speculation business. Keeper | 76 21:57, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Spellcast (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meer Abdullah Harun[edit]

Meer Abdullah Harun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A reposting of Abdullah Harun, which was speedily deleted on 16 December. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of BdJewel (talk · contribs) a single purpose account Victoriagirl (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's the same page speedy delete it again. Why post in afd? --Neon white (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my understanding that the recreation of a speedily deleted article could not also be speedily deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm all for a speedy delete.Victoriagirl (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoriagirl is right; G4 (recreation of deleted material) only applies to pages that were re-created after an AfD. It does not apply to re-creation of previously speedied material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:58, 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 --JForget 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grabber Tees[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No outside sources. Created by User:Grabbertees (WP:SPA account. Speedy tag removed Keeper | 76 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nominator note. Another user, User:Yoko ono lives, (also spa) has been removing tags, including the AfD tag from the article

Speedy delete no way this classifies as advertising/spam. only can see a delete on basis of sources in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Into everything (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is User:Into everything's first contribution to Wikipedia.

  • Delete, no indication of notability. Speedy was contested but creator has added an apparently bogus book reference (publisher doesn't seem to exist). --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. User "Into everything" has made his second contribution. Copied from my talk page: you're nuts, delete the page for all i care. the faster the better. User:Into everything. Keeper | 76 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - spam, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 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 all. JERRY talk contribs 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bass roles in musicals[edit]

List of bass roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vocal roles in musicals are almost never concretely defined nor is there a set standard for what is a bass, alto, and so on. These lists will accumulate original research and could become quite unwieldily. --omtay38 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These other articles are also included in this nomination (for similar reasons):

List of bass-baritone roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of baritone roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of tenor roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of contralto roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of mezzo-soprano roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of soprano roles in musicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: I think these lists stem from the Bass (voice) lists (and the other respective ones. Therefore, adding them back might not be the best idea. --omtay38 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no widespread agreement as to which roles in musicals fall into which voice categories, and I don't see how any of these lists could be useful. In addition, they are entirely OR and dubious, and they are entirely unreferenced because there are no reliable sources for this information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roles in musicals are very hard to categorize. There are no real references and no one really agrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadwaygal (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone can sing anything in musicals. I've cast Sopranos as Judas; I've re-arranged entire shows to cater to specific voices. These lists are just going to invite original research and points of view. —  MusicMaker5376 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Singularity 07:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansai Time Out[edit]

Kansai Time Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; no independent sources to show that this newspaper is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete short article with little or no context (A1) and/ or no assertion of notability (A7), tagged. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't count being a foreign-language newspaper in publication for 30 years an assertion of notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, A1 doesn't apply, because you can figure out that the article's about a publication. It has little content, but that's a different word, and being short is not a crime. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A google search of the japanese title yields 50 hits. Not enough. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney talk 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed to CSD tag, since this debate was all ready going on, had just opened today, and doesn't seem to have consensus yet. I agree with Mr. Senseless that the article in its current condition could have been tagged, but I thought we may as well weigh in on it since it was brought to Afd. Having said all that, I agree that there's no showing of notability here. The article is quite new (created 3 days 2 weeks ago) so I'm not surprised its short. I would endorse deletion (weakly) but I hope that the author or others can find sourcing. If so, I'd be open to changing my position. Xymmax (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm changing my position. a proper Google search ("kansai time out" -wikipedia) produced an excerpt from successive years of a travel guide calling it "an excellent resource for information about Kyoto and the Kansai area."[5] There also is a reasonably in depth article in the Japan Times here. There are many, many other hits that I just don't have time to go through right now, but this publication appears to host film screenings [6], participate in journalism conferences [7], and just generally act like a major publication [8]. I now believe that this organization is notable. Keep. Xymmax (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google gives me 250 hits Fg2 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves actually reading the things that Google finds for you, and determining whether multiple in-depth published works from independent sources exist that cover this subject. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thank you for that comment. I wish you had directed it to the person who based his vote on the number of Google hits, rather than to the person who made a nonvoting comment on it. Fg2 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the sources Xymmax found, I believe we've enough to demonstrate notability. Keep, with the hope that Xymmax will at least copy those references to the talk page so that others can work on the article over time. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment References added to talk page as requested. Xymmax (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the newly found references assert notability. matt91486 (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really the best we can do on KTO? I really don't see anything useful in the stub, although I know there must be sources out there that can turn this into an article (they may be mostly in Japanese). Dekimasuよ! 10:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the newspaper being in publication for over 30 years, and the information found by Xymmax. Yes, the article can be made better, but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last two keeps-if the big dogs in the Japan project say it's notable, they know. Chris (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, thankfully this prod was contested. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:24, 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. Singularity 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Millstone[edit]

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

Subject meets none of the criteria for biographical notability and the reference cited doesn't even mention the subject and I can find no external verification. This looks like a hoax and should be deleted. Isotope23 talk 19:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax, I can't find any reliable sources on this guy. The only thing that comes up in a google search is this wikipedia article. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a hoax to me. The link has nothing to do with this guy, as well.   jj137 ♠ 21:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if Doug is real (and I'm pretty sure he isn't), he is still non-notable. Keeper | 76 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete as hoax - let's not waste our time.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:22, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Bryan[edit]

John O'Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; unsourced article about someone who, it is claimed without evidence, has some writing credits but is more like a writer's equivalent of a bit-part actor. Fails WP:BIO. So nn that we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of non-notability in modern biographies: we are an encyclopedia, if anyone wants to read a biography here one should expect to see the minimal core biographical details that are missing in this article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Regardless of the missing bio info, even if it were here, Mr. O'Bryan would not meet the notability guidelines. Adding his date of birth will not help that. Keeper | 76 21:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources, and writing credits are rather thin -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Salfia (Pakistan)[edit]

Jamia Salfia (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced article about a nn school or mosque. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Places are not subject to notability criteria anyway --Ryan Delaney talk 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would be keep if it was a place but it's not. Punkmorten (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Places generally have a very loose standard for notability, as their existance is generally sufficient. However, they still have to meet Verifiability, and I can't actually prove that this place or organization or university or whatever it is actually exists. With sources, I'd be happy to keep, but I'm not convinced at this time that the article is sourceable. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:56, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Don 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—This has been PROD-deleted twice since the last AFD. However, the present version is more polished and has a citation versus being rough and without references for the article at the second AFD-deletion. Recommend that if the article is deleted this time, the talk-page be retained with AFD-record attached. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again and salt. Wikipedia is still not a crystal ball and its already been deleted four times. Even the first movie article makes no mention at all of this supposed sequel. If movie is actually released, it should be created under the proper title of 'Don 2 - The Chase Continues'. Collectonian (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but don't salt. Maybe this movie is made? Maybe it isn't. We're not fortune tellers, but this may very well be a very valid article in the near future. Keeper | 76 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack reliable sources and, IF there is any reliable sources whatsoever, it should be added as a section to the Don - The Chase Begins Again article until the movie is actually released. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:24, 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 keep. Singularity 07:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownsburg Community School Corporation[edit]

Brownsburg Community School Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No encyclopedic notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really?. You want to delete an entire school district? I say Keep. It exists. It's an entire district. WP:OUTCOMES says we should merge non notable schools into the districts' pages. You want to delete the district page? Am I missing something? Keeper | 76 22:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We have extremely clear consensus that school districts are inherently notable, this one is no exception. Alansohn (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this should be a no brainer, school districts are clearly notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep duh. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Littletown Breadmill[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book; article written primarily by book author, who admits that he wrote the article in an effort to get the book made into a movie. Only alleged (and unreferenced) claim to notability is that the book won an award in a writing contest based on the number of words written. Russ (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction. The article does contain a reference to the National Novel Writing Month website. Following the FAQ link on that site reveals that everyone who writes 50,000 words or more during that month is presented with an award, so this really can't count as an assertion of notability. --Russ (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not published, not reviewed, not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not surprisingly, no independent sources to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. And not notable. And spa. and everything Wikipedia isn't. Keeper | 76 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the more I look into this it appears to be spam or at worst self promotion. Very poor argumentation for retention. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With all do respect, this is not a spam nor an effort for self promotion. When i created this page, i had in my mind that wikipedia needs to handle more Filipino stories. Also, the award is real to those who really made their novels. I believe it needs to be noted not for self-glorification but for further classification of the quality of the work and what makes it special(not all winners finish their stories and not all are off to getting them published). Not published(yet), not reviewed(no professional reviews yet). If the basis for deletion is copyright, everything is copyright. even what you just typed is copyrighted by you. copyright is not the certificate but rather an intangible thing that occurs between the product and the maker in the instant of it's creation. setting the technicality aside, i wish to point out that the excerpt section will have to be renamed to a more appropriate title. this is somewhat of an overview of what the story is roughly about, readers need to know what a story is roughly all about. Thank you for your concern to this article, whether it be positive or negative. My main goal here is to inform searchers that this is a story that had been written from the Philippines and the NaNoWriMo. I'll try to place the titles of some of the big titled stories that had won the NaNoWriMo event on a new section of the page if you guys think it could help. It's hard to prove to you this is no advertising feat but i would like to tell you that it's not and i if it's starting to sound like one with all the editing, please assist me into making it work more for the interest of wikipedia. Thank you very much. Xrecent (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the basis for deletion is not copyright. The basis for deletion is what you said yourself -- "Not published(yet), not reviewed(no professional reviews yet)." Wikipedia is not a listing of every book ever written, only the notable ones. I invite you to follow that last link to see the criteria explained in more detail. --Russ (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you Russ and everyone here for the links you have provided. I have in fact followed the links you gave me. I can see that this article may be posted too soon and because of that I would like to ask when will it be most appropriate to post this article if ever it should be deleted. Since it has already been proposed for removal, upon its likely deletion, when will it be most appropriate to possibly reposting/reconstructing it. Again I will further emphasis that my goal here is to populate the category for Filipino novels. I’m already researching for published works but so far, this is the entry that I am having much issue with. I am learning a lot of things from this and will surely take those into account for the next articles that I will be contributing. Also, is there no part of this that can be possibly salvaged rather than deleted? Upon reading the section of notability, I can see what you mean by not being notable enough. And true, it currently is not 'yet' that notable. I think I may have to conform to your suggestion but I am still hoping some parts of this may be salvaged or possibly reconstructed, retained or rebuilt...presently or on a later date. Thank you very much. Xrecent (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability in the form of independent book reviews etc. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 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. GlassCobra 09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper kill[edit]

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

Independent production with no third party coverage. Fails WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably non-notable YouTube-style material.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a search for "Hyper kill" and "Kane and Hamilton designs" together yield no reliable sources. In fact the only results are this wiki article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:19, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Manor[edit]

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

This seems to be an unnotable hotel MSGJ (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any relevant, independent source that show that this particular bed and breakfast is notable. A fantastic candidate for Wikitravel. Keeper | 76 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pretty building in pretty surroundings, I think. But very unlikely to be notable (there are many millions of buildings and structures around the world, and only a very, very small percentage of them are truly notable).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:25, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootny Lee Farnsworth[edit]

Bootny Lee Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:26, 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. Keilana 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jin[edit]

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

Unreferenced for more than eighteen months. Apparently original research. Mikeblas (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Duplicated work from within Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598). --Pmedema (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined towards Keep. A few minutes searching found a couple of refs which I have added to the article. Seems to be a notable figure in Korean history.--Michig (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michig; notability for 16th century Korea would have been on a par with David Petraeus. Pity the Koreans didn;t have the interwebs to write us reliable sources. Skomorokh incite 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, significance, so Keep. Cool Hand Luke 20:57, 27 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. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kre8tiveworkz[edit]

Kre8tiveworkz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spammy article on a company with iffy notability. Article creator has removed advert and coi tags without improving the article. He has claimed here that he is not Todd Edwards, CEO of the company, but had signed previous posts here and here under that name. The same editor has also repeatedly created the spam article Reality Rhyming® about the company's main product. Reference list does contain a valid reference or two, but most links are irrelevant. If the article is kept, it should be stubified. --Finngall talk 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm confused. This article follows all of your guidelines exactly. Everything can be verified, it's all factual, significant to the world and not self promoting. The Hallmark Greeting Cards article was even used as a guide to write this one. Please advise and thank you. BHammycurls (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails our guideline WP:CORP (notability for businesses). Fails the primary notability criterion. Google News Archive search turns up only press releases. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable business, considering that this company created a new writing style of the written language and rhyme methodology, its cultural popularity has gone way up in society. Celebrities have even picked up on it. Google News Archive search turns up press releases, but other reliable sources as well. Keep it as a stub if anything. --Fantasyfest (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Fantasy — Fantasyfest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. By the book article - verifiable, good cites, etc. prove corporate notability. Needs cleanup for tone, but otherwise, it's a fine stub. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as most of the sources seem to be media releases and independent coverage seems to be short. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a Google search and found a few more reliable sources. Meets notible criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.129.144 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) — 65.3.129.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per Bearian, hopefully additional sources of a non-promotional nature can be dredged up soon, but I think this is notable enough. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just heard him on an NPR Radio interview. It ran a few times this past Friday morning. — 98.203.19.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 11:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs in popular culture[edit]

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

Nearly all unsalvageable trivia that's hard to read. Hardly anything is referenced. Anything we might want to keep can be easily incorporated into the Frog article. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles and Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How "unsalvageable" is it? Has an effort been made to source any of these statements? I'm seeing Talk page complaints, but not salvage attempts. I'm also seeing a former AfD that suggests no progress is being made on fixing what was wrong 4 months ago. I would suggest sourcing what can be, removing what cannot be, and trimming the IPC lists to items that demonstrate something (other than "I saw a frog"). This may be a case of WP:PROBLEM. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, hardly any effort has been put towards fixing it, to be honest, but I strongly doubt we'd be able to find references for most of it--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and Delete. A good article could be made on this topic, which seems notable enough, but there is no sign this article ever will become encyclopedic. I have merged Frogs and the French (sourced), Frog proverbs and Frogs in Egyptian mythology (both unsourced) into Frog for consideration by editors there. The rest, if kept, can only be the foundation for a rambling IPC list. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no such action. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you insist. Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proverbs are also merged to Wikiquote. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll bet this can be tidied up to resemble Cultural depictions of spiders. Articles like this would be a good start. And this book has a chapter about frogs in folklore. Frogs: Art, Legend and History sounds most helpful, although I can't get a good description of it online. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and execute Zagalejo's suggestion. Lots of dross in this ore, but with the refining fire of sources, this is at least a nugget, if not a full bar, of a cool, interesting, and useful article. I note, btw, that WP:NOEFFORT is an argument to leap over. Ribbit! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it contains prose and is referenced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • These references don't really make a case for this article. Of the 5, only Why do the French call the British 'the roast beefs'? (now merged to Frog) applies. An article for boiling frog exists elsewhere, and the IMDB link documents a spotting, but is otherwise uninformative on the article topic. The other two are science links not relevant to "Popular culture". / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • David P. Badger's Frogs (S.l.: Voyageur Press, 2001) includes chapters on "frogs in popular culture, their physical characteristics and behavior, and environmental challenges." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there'll be independent refs to add. Will get to this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - largely in poor shape currently, but there is referenced material and it is patently salvageable, contrary to the nom. --Dweller (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art (ISBN 0826415253} devotes pages 188 to 191 to frogs, beginning with Neolithic representations, and including Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Aztec, Olmec, Moche, Mayan, Japanese, Hindu, and Christian frog symbolisms. Wikipedia should be no less of an encyclopaedia than that. An administrator hitting the delete button is not required to make that so. What is required is that editors hit their edit buttons and make the article better, using ordinary editing tools in the ordinary way.

    And yes, renaming the article to Cultural depictions of frogs is certainly the way to encourage editors to stop thinking that a collection of examples of frogs in 20th/21st century pop culture somehow magically forms a coherent article when it exceeds some critical mass. Administrator privileges are not required in order to rename articles, either, though. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The references being Googled up in this Afd could surely help one write a very good article on Frogs in popular culture. Not like the trivial fork nominated for deletion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's lots more to be said on the subject. Frog Went A-Courting, Ethel the Frog and more. And, by coincidence, I bought two Frog bicycle lights today. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment - This is a clearly notable topic and deserves to be included. I've changed the title to fit in with most other pop culture pages (Cultural depictions of spiders & Cultural depictions of lions to name a few), and this also makes it sound more sophisticated. JSYK. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this is a poor argument for this article, but...I like reading stuff like this. It's kind of fun and enjoyable. I like going to bed at night knowing there are cool articles like this waiting to be read in Wikipedia. Ozmaweezer (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A horrendous and purposeless trivia article. Un-fixable. Just nuke the whole thing, and start afresh, perhaps using the new title.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, guidelines state shouldn't be dleted on quality alone. Thanks for noting one should start afresh. Suggests you think topic notable. :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't tell if it's still up for AfD, because the template was removed from the article. But keep obviously. AfD is not clean-up and what's there now is a better start than an empty edit window. --JayHenry (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, terrible article presently. Lawrence Cohen 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a fairly good page,and almost everyone here realises it. Even if it were "Nearly all unsalvageable trivia" the salvageable parts could be salvaged; being" hard to read." is not cause for deletion and "Hardly anything is referenced" is a reason to reference, not delete. So all parts of the deletion rationale fail. But the article is referenced, and there is by now consensus even at WP:FICTION that material can be sourced from the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While any given example of a frog in fiction can be sourced from the fiction itself, it would be original research to source statements like "The theme of transfiguration of and into frogs also features prominently" or "pop culture tends to portray frogs as benign, but ugly, and often clumsy, but also with hidden talents" to fictional examples.
      Also, the factoid that a book entitled Frogs has a chapter on "Frogs in popular culture" (added during this AfD) is unencyclopedic; its presence in the lede section is comparable to writing don't delete this article it is very notable in the article text. Perhaps a guideline on what "salvage" means can be written to discourage article space wikilawyering of this kind. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I agree that I wouldn't have placed a chapter entry like that but it serves to highlight that material is out there, and hence challenges the whole idea it is non-notable. There are vast amounts of material out there than many people here are not aware of. Edgarde have you been to any cinema/film bookstores or humnaties libraries (at university not municipal that is). Much of this stuff is out there. No need to stray into OR as it will be able to be sourced. And please don't use words like unencyclopedic as it doesn't mean anything in context here but WP:IDONTLIKEIT cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "unencyclopedic" was pretty vague. What I mostly mean is unhelpful filler posing as information. If someone needs to learn about Frogs in popular culture, the fact that an otherwise-unknown book has a chapter about Frogs in popular culture does not really tell them anything about Frogs in popular culture. A Google book search is not a substitute for information on the subject. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky then that I have a couple of books on my bookshelf with info rather than just relying on google. However a positive google search highlights the fact there is secondary source information around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, the statement that such information exists does not create an article. And there have been comments about how this article will be improved for close to a year now. The good material has been merged back to Frog. If someone wants to write a scholarly article on the subject of Frogs in popular culture (by whatever title), the resources clearly abound, but there is nothing here worth retaining in a separate article. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do not delete information that is probably true, that people will want to read, and that isn't causing a problem. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have no idea whether it's true or not due to its lack of references. As for people wanting to read it, it's just useless info that people won't care about. It's causing a problem because of the last two points.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion regarding what is useless info. For any real assessment of trivia's popualrity just look at any newsstand and see what the biggest selling magazines are. There are references coming so both points are invalid. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of random info. That is an extremely badly presented collecion of random information.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK so its messy. We don't delete on article quality. And there are cohesive sources, so that doesn't apply, and consensus seems to not agree with you. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There a four references for the whole article.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 13:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and? Better than none, and the sort of material which qualifies for RS would not often be in an average municipal library but more fine arts bit of uni library or specialist bookstore. One day someone will trot down and find some nice stuff to slot in...maybe it will be soon, but at least google etc. shows that the subject is notable :)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if it isn't referenced, we don't know it's true. And what do we do with information that isn't true? That's right, delete.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really any doubt that The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County has a frog in it? We don't need a outside reference to make that conclusion for us. Zagalejo^^^ 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix-wiki, we don't delete information that's unverified. We delete information that's not verifiable. There's an enormous and extremely important difference. --JayHenry (talk) 02:11, 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. Wizardman 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KDEN (disambiguation)[edit]

KDEN (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Disambiguation page for only two uses. Need has been eliminated on target pages, and nothing links here anymore.
Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:56, 12/19/2007


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:HEY as Obesity in India. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian states ranking by overweight people[edit]

Indian states ranking by overweight people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO. You help me decide if I'm right. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Encyclopedicity is borderline, if you ask me, but I wouldn't mind a full article Obesity in India (or any other country where it's a significant problem). --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I go with Dhartung that a real article wouldn't hurt. There is just too little here to make it encyclopedic. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked through Category:Obesity, and couldn't find anything relating to obesity by country except for a single article - Obesity in the United States. If we have articles on LGBT rights by country, then obesity by country could be a perfectly valid topic for a range of articles.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should clarify that my idea has a basis in dietary and health care differences that are likely to be substantial at a country level. There actually is a good deal of at least popular literature around the idea that places like Italy, France and Japan have better diets and less obesity than the US, for instance. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have lots of almanac-y type lists ranking various countries, states, whatnot by various factors; this is sourced, health (and hence obesity) is encyclopedic, so this is ok by WP:LIST. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, I have to reiterate the points Carlossuarez46 made. Second, I am making these article linked to an other article which also I have been making titled Indian states rankings. It makes more sense when it is linked to that article.128.231.88.4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a list that is not actually well sourced. If an article could be written that identifies trends and rates of complications (diabetes very common in India) I might defend its inclusion. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From your rationale it appears that you have completely skipped over the Further Reading section of the article, as well as the two stub tags. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be wrong to delete the article based on a hastiliy made opinion of JFW. He is absolutely wrong to say that the article is not well sourced.. He needs to visit this website http://nfhsindia.org/nfhs3_national_report.html and click NFHS-3 fact sheets and verify all the informations by each state. Secondly, I agree that diabetes is a major problem in India. But it would be wrong to say that you cant make an article about obesity just because diabetes is the problem. Thirdly, I would like to reiterate the point again which is that "this statistics about obesity" is a part of a major article I am writing Indian states rankings and in a larger context, it all makes absolute sense. Finally, information is an information, whether it is about diabetes or obesity.Fair and Honest_India 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I actually think it's a valid stub now thanks to the help of Dhartung and others. Nom withdrawn.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for everyone who participated int his discussion. I guess I can remove "deleteion" tag from the article now. I will be very happy if somebody explains some of the terms used here, for example, AFD and nom withdrawn. Fair and Honest_India 02:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcpkumar (talk • contribs)
  • AFD means an articles for deletion debate, which is what this is. Nom withdrawn means that I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion, meaning that I want the article to be kept. If you're new try reading WP:WELCOME, Help:Contents/Getting started and learn more.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saur Revolution[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted and the page name "Saur Revolution" become a redirect to this location People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#The Saur Revolution. As you can see, currently this article has a 1 sentence summary and a weasel worded, non-neutral, unreferenced statement attempting to approximate why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Obviously it would be better to improve this article, but I can't do it and if anyone else was gonna, they'd of done by now. Far better for anyone who types in "Saur Revolution" to be linked to informed, referenced account on the PDPA page, than this, plus if someone in the future comes along and decides they wanna make the Saur Revolution into a full article, they'll be well within their rights to do so :) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why not merge the PDPA section with this article and tag for better referencing? Seems the revolution was not a part of the history of the party but the history of the country, so shouldn't be buried. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point, then it'll simply be a reworded version of the section in the PDPA with nothing extra. Don't worry it wouldn't be "buried", all of Saur Revolution's links will be redirected to the PDPA section, which will actually be an improvement to Wikipedia, coz at the moment people who search "Saur Revolution" only get to see the article with 1 sentence. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: D'oh, silly me, I probably should've just replaced all the text on Saur Revolution with a redirect to People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan#The Saur Revolution, would been a lot simpler than starting an AFD. I am starting to feel tired lol...Ryan4314 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don't think you understand. Have you seen the Saur Revolution article in it's current state? It's 2 sentences! If we redirect it to it's subheader on PDPA it'd be much better for the community, they'll actually be able to learn about it for a start. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can click a link from this article to that one; there's no meaningful benefit to redirecting it. We need a proper article on this subject, and by redirecting we substantially reduce our odds of getting one. Stubs need to grow, not to be eliminated. Everyking (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub hasn't grown for a year now, are you gonna do it? Also I don't think anybody actually knows about the sizeable entry on the PDPA page, hence the problem; Anyone who types in "Saur Revolution" will just get linked to a 1 sentence article, and won't be able to find out anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 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, pretty obvious OR. GlassCobra 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Networking[edit]

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

I read the article three times and I still don't know what Visual Networking is. I am, however, pretty certain that this article is almost completely original research. CIreland (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't think the proposer's own lack of comprehension for the subject is sufficient to warrant the article's deletion. Although unsourced and generally untidy, I am sure that sources could be found for it (quick google search returns some valid referencing material). Although it looks like it has been copied from somewhere (from a quick glance), it still needs a tidy up of prose and layout, with references being a must. The article looks valid to me, and although I have no knowledge of the subject, can't see a valid reason to delete it. It's only had a week - if in a few weeks nothing has changed with no references added or notability of the subject asserted, then by all means deletion might be warranted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an essay, and smells very much like a copyvio, and is POV regardless. The term is most often seen as an entry point to visualization for network analysis, or outside computing, for making network charts (e.g. company-to-company relationships). I am not finding a good primary source for this topic as "visualized" by the creator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a college writing assignment or corporate presentation. It's all padding, written in theoretical terms and with no actual information. The subject's notability is also highly questionable: search engine searches for the phrase return unrelated results. I suspect this subject may have been made up by the author.
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:31, 12/19/2007
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. This dab page seems to be perfectly fine. Singularity 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario & Luigi[edit]

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

A page that lists two games, Template:Mario RPG series also exists, actually does a better job. Fangz of Blood 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Disambiguation pages aren't articles, and this term is a likely search term. I have cleaned up the page per MOS:DAB. – sgeureka t•c 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per sgeureka. Too lazy to check how it looked like before, but in its current state, it is perfectly fine. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:09, 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. Kurykh 05:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveQuant[edit]

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

Notability for open source financial package has not been established. Ronnotel (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why is this ActiveQuant marked for deletion? It's in the same style and on the same context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantlib . What is your criteria for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria for notability can be found at WP:N. Essentially, there should be multiple citations by independent, reliable sources to be considered notable. Ronnotel (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a search result of 577 sources on google: ::http://www.google.de/search?q=ActiveQuant+-site:activequant.org+-site:activestocks.de+-site:activestocks.eu&hl=de&start=0&sa=N not notable ? It is the most active project by mailing list activity on nabble.com, even more active than quickfix, etc. : http://www.nabble.com/Financial-Software-f1033.html
If you delete this article, you'll have to remove almost every software article in wikipedia. ActiveQuant made it even into the Top 20 vital projects on Freshmeat: http://www.nabble.com/News-from-Freshmeat-to14249153.html - that's something only a fraction of other open source software projects have achieved,yet. Also keep in mind that ActiveQuant is gaining more and more influence, some jobs (see http://www.gojobs.com/seeker/jobdetail.asp?jobnum=4507125&jbid=1625 ) require people to have knowledge of ActiveQuant (as well as of Quantlib).
If you delete this page, you also have to delete for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centericq , so, please don't delete it as it, as in my eyes, this deletion request is completely unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk • contribs)
(above comment re-formatted)Please review the criteria for reliable sources. In order to be notable, the subject of the article must receive significant coverage by independent reliable sources. To be considered reliable, a source must have an editorial process in place that WP can rely on to verify the content it publishes. Blog write-ups, forum participation, web-sites, etc., are all considered unreliable. If you can find some description of ActiveQuant in the industry publications, that might do it. However, what's been listed so far isn't enough to establish notability. Ronnotel (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a good idea to delete this page. ActiveQuant is the successor of CCAPI2 - a leading open source automatic trading system (ATS) based on Java. After having looked at about 20 such systems - I find, that there is no better and more promising project around to develop an ATS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.34.239 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuantLib is a product with totally different purpose, although seems to be similar in some ways. Perhaps, because both products use word "quant" in it and both are finance-related. But QuantLib is a labrary of math algorithms and ActiveQuant is a trading platform. It is growing in popularity, its free and open source, just like Wikipedia content is. Why should it be deleted? (Yuryr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.111.202 (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. For those who are in support of this article, please, it does not help your cause to attack other products or other Wikipedia articles. What will help is to find reviews and discussions of ActiveQuant, the longer and more detailed the better, in publications (whether paper or electronic) that are clearly independent from the developers. If these sources are widely known and recognized, then few are needed. It seems possible that this level of information is not yet available for ActiveQuant. In that case, it might be best just to let this version of the article be deleted, and try again in a few weeks or months, when better sources become available. I will be happy to discuss what sources you find and generate, as they occur, and let you have my opinion as to how well they cover the notability problem. Tim Ross·talk 14:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. hi there, following a list of sources i found on the net.

ActiveQuant:

http://www.gojobs.com/seeker/jobdetail.asp?jobnum=4725486&jbid=1625 http://freshmeat.net/projects/activequant/?branch_id=52197&release_id=267351 http://www.softwareheadlines.com/modules/planet/view.article.php/243436 http://ojts.sourceforge.net/ http://www.ohloh.net/projects/8064/enlistments http://warrenng.blogspot.com/2007_08_01_archive.html http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=85659 http://www.linuxlinks.com/Java/Financial/ http://www.nabble.com/ccapi2-and-activeQuant-f27807.html

http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=activequant&type=all http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi2&type=all http://del.icio.us/search/?fr=del_icio_us&p=ccapi&type=all


CCAPI2 : http://www.x-trader.net/cms/articulos/software-y-tecnologia/jsystemtrader_4.html Presentation at Fosdem 2007 : http://archive.fosdem.org/2007/schedule/events/lt_ccapi2 http://www.opentick.com/index.php?app=content&event=platforms http://www.linux-beginnerforum.de/glossary/index.php


I don't agree that it doesn't help to name other projects that have similar coverage or weak references, as this just points out how problematic this delete discussion is. There is so much software out there that is named on wikipedia with less coverage and less significance that i really can't comprehend why exactly this article was marked for deletion. ActiveQuant is on the web, under the former name ccapi2, for more than four years, a time quite some people on the web (including wikipedia editors) spent in high school. Also keep in mind that there should be something like same rules for everyone and do not forget, you (wiki-patrons) attack us and all these small projects, not vice versa.

I also can't understand why user Ronnotel, a user with quite some knowledge in financial aspects is so dense to not see the relevance of activeQuant as the only professional open source trading framework worldwide on the net. I would appreciate some feedback from him on that - i.e. if he knows any other open source algorithm trading framework.

And to raise another point, if we speak about ronnotel's activities on volatility arbitrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_arbitrage), an article that is listed on his page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronnotel) as "substantially revised", i clearly can see NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE, this article simply hangs completely in the air. Before arguing to delete articles, please first clean in front of your own door.

One of the main problems to achieve media coverage is the simple and mere fact, this topic is not mass relevant, the total amount of active practitioners of the art of computational finance is small compared to simple programmers worldwide.

Thanks for your offer for discussion.

(ustaudinger, 12/25/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.98.196 (talk) 15:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaudinger, this process is not an attempt to be vindictive and there is nothing whatsoever against ActiveQuant. This AfD is simply following well-established WP policy regarding notability. So far, the only evidence provided are job ads, forum discussions, and press releases. These do not qualify as reliable sources and therefore ActiveQuant does not meet the threshold of notability. This treatment is identical to that given thousands of articles every month who similarly are found to be not notable. If ActiveQuant is as important as you claim, I have no doubt that it will one day be notable and I would be the first to support its inclusion. Until then, WP is not the place to seek a wider audience. Ronnotel (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, ustaudinger, but it seems clear that you are new to editing Wikipedia and are having some difficulty understanding how the process works. The people who run it, and who make the vast majority of the decisions, are not "wiki-patrons". They are standard people who are willing to volunteer their spare minutes in an effort to make the world a better place. I am one of them, and so are you. I have no special authority here, no more access or greater privileges than do you. Just like anyone, I have the ability to edit articles you write, and I have the ability to comment on articles proposed for deletion. In fact, I guess I can make such proposals, and so can you. You can go to articles I have initiated, make changes, and comment on any inadequacies you may find, whereupon I will probably do my best to figure out ways to make improvements. One of the ground rules, though, is that all articles must meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Neither you nor I can change that requirement (although we can certainly suggest changes if we wish).
I have gone through the "list of sources" you provided above, and have listed them, along with my thoughts on their applicability to the notability issue, on my talk page. I hope this is helpful. Tim Ross·talk 13:59, 26 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. Singularity 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Phantom (starship)[edit]

USS Phantom (starship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So little info that it's almost speedily deletable for lack of context. Probably non-encyclopedic although I have no idea what "Bravofleet" is. Merenta (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as I can see there's not even a clue as to what work of fiction it's from.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction as in I don't believe that the USS Phantom is a real starship that I could hop in and go for a ride.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL dude I was joking, I don't think "Starships" are around yet, unless you have 1, do you? Can I hop in and have a ride? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i'm afraid that's classified. Actually I wasn't sure if it was a comment on the semantics between "Fiction" a something in an RPG/Sim setting. It's all cool.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point mate, I swear some people will argue the earth is flat on these AFD's lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can see, this is a part of some Star Trek simming group [9]. I don't even think the sim is notable, much less the group or the specific ship. Should be speedied. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of context. The simulation/rpg might be notable, but a single minor element of that rpg certainly isn't, especially with no sources or context whatsoever. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of content, lack of context and lack of notability. Majoreditor (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Singularity 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Union Party[edit]

Liberty Union Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced since creation, tagged as such since August, 191 unique Google hits of under 3,000 total, so not a lot of hope for providing those missing sources. Looks like an interesting but not terribly important group. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - this party has a unique place in Vermont history. The article clearly needs work on sourcing (I'll try to do a bit myself soon), but in no way should it be deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I see about 20 articles that mention it in the New York Times archives, from 1970 through 2007. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:56, 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. Singularity 07:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Restaurant Week[edit]

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

Delete - No notability proved by which it can be called that this article is encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing in Google News Archive except the announcement. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement/spam. We have restaurant week in New York too, but it's just not encyclopedic content. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability and doesn't fit the general idea of Wikipedia. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete So, if this were the second year the event was taking place, would it still not be considered encyclopedic?64.165.145.2 (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its notability is not verifiable from the article. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:04, 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 db-copyvio (http://www.makingmoveslv.com/). -- JLaTondre 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making Moves[edit]

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

Is an article about an organisation which does not state notability. Harland1 (t/c) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Arguably speedily deletable under criterion A7. Merenta (talk) 16:57, 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 per WP:DIRECTORY. GlassCobra 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna County Cemeteries[edit]

Lackawanna County Cemeteries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Simply a list of cemeteries in a specific county, fails WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. Dougie WII (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nomination on the ground that the article fails WP:DIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. Also, the one reference is to Rootsweb, which is a site with information uploaded by individuals who are sometimes unidentified, and which is therefore not a reliable source so the article fails the verifiability requirement. The cemetaries in the list are individually not notable enough to have articles, so it is not a navigational aid to help find Wikipedia articles. This list belongs on a county level historical society article, such as the Rootsweb site from which it was apparently copied. That website saying the info is "available free to the public" may not grant Wikipedia the right to reproduce it. (edited)Edison (talk) 16:25, 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.   jj137 ♠ 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AXIA[edit]

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

Questionable notability, reads like an ad/PR piece. Dougie WII (talk) 15:33, 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 --Polaron | Talk 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of examples of faux Cyrillic typography[edit]

List of examples of faux Cyrillic typography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Incomplete nomination by an anon. They said: This page is just a list of trivial instances of incorrect usage of Cyrillic characters in English. This is not even remotely encyclopedia-worthy and there are few if any citations. User:71.116.111.167 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Dan in Berkeley. Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: WikiProject Writing systems has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article as it stands original research, lacking any references which discuss the practice of using Cyrillic letters inappropriately. It has certainly been done for comic effect or in some of the examples in the article, erroneously in films. But references are needed, beyond the original research of the article writers noting examples. I did not find any reliable sources discussing it in a Google news search. Perhaps someone else can find references wherein the practice is discussed (as opposed to more trivial examples) before the AFD discussion period is over. As it stands it fails WP:N Edison (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Main article is Faux Cyrillic, also without sources. I would dearly like to keep as this is a well-known typographical cliché, but we would need some sources. If we can keep the main article we could merge more notable examples there. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Faux Cyrillic It's worthy of an article, simply because people assume that "Я" and "И" are Russian for "R" and "N" (actually, Р and H the equivalents). Author is incorrect about "Red Heat"; the fake Russian characters were used in the opening credits, rather than the closing ones. The movie starred "AЯИOLД SCHШAЯZЭИЭGGAЯ"-- ouch. Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not many movies star Ayaiold Schshayazeiaeggaya, probably because very few people can pronounce his name. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to faux cyrillic as it does contain encyclopedic information but doesn't warrant an article of its own. I'm very tempted to add an example to the article referring to the use of "Я" in Wikipedia user names! Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <looks around suspiciously> Who, me? :o) ➔ REDVEЯS is wearing a pointy red hat 08:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the text is merged into the main article: please prune the list down and stress that it is intentionally incomplete and should stay so. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Faux Cyrillic according to Mandsford above. --Lockley (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively Merge and then redirect to Faux Cyrillic. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 27 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. Singularity 06:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Terminal Studios (Recording Studio)[edit]

Earth Terminal Studios (Recording Studio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was listed as an A7, but its list of clients -- if true -- makes a claim for notability. Still, delete, lacking reliable sources. Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable claims to notability unsubstantiated. Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article contains no third-party sources or references to establish notability. Given some verification for the stated notability claims and I would change my opinion. -- KingNewbs (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing notable claimed, as well as no third party sources, etc. Guldenat (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a hard one for me. Only one of the cited references actually mentioned this studio, and even then, it was in passing that they used it on their way to Prague. One of the external links didn't mention it at all. While it appears to be a viable, established studio, this article should be deleted. Perhaps if more reliable references can be found... this one relies too much on it's own website. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:23, 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 Redirect to Mutant (Marvel Comics). Editors may wish to perform a light merge (though it'll have to be very selective; as the article states "..an exact definition of the term is unclear"). BLACKKITE 10:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omega-level mutant[edit]

Omega-level mutant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is a fictional term from Marvel Comics that was never meaningfully defined in the comics, leaving the article to be original research. The term has no substantial cultural impact, and so all information is going to be in-universe. And, more to the point, it's just not that important a term in comics either. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's been an attempt to redirect this to a better suited article, Mutant (Marvel Comics), but if the redirect won't stick I guess deletion is the other option. Hiding T 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find any books discussing this, which is a bad sign given how many books there are that analyse Marvel Comics' fiction. I couldn't find any scholarly articles. Looking at the WWW, all that turns up are thousands of Wikipedia mirrors, articles on other wikis whose fact checking and peer review are nonexistent, vague pseudonymous discussion forum postings, and fan fiction. This article is in part sourced to fictional dialogue, presenting it as if it were fact, and in part (as can be seen from its talk page) an original analysis of raw data being constructed directly in Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors. Fiction is not fact. And Wikipedia is not the place for coming up with a solid definition of something from scratch when no such definition exists outside of Wikipedia. There's nothing worth keeping here, and, given that as far as I can tell no-one has actually documented it properly outside of Wikipedia, no way to write an article on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncle G gave sound reasons for deleting this article. Delete as WP:OR. Edison (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Uncle G. Original research. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil Sandifer and Uncle G. WesleyDodds (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is no duplication of this information anywhere else on Wikipedia and deletion without any incorporation of this info somewhere else would do a disservice to the encyclopedia. You're using the absence of scholarly articles on this topic as prompt to delete it? What do you mean by scholarly article - do you mean thesis type of articles written by professors at a university level or just newspaper articles? First, let me point out that thousands of article on Wikipedia have no scholarly articles devoted to them and I'm not seeing those being deleted? While I'm not accusing anyone of targeting this article just because, using the absence of scholarly articles as a impetus to delete it is rather odd considering a search can be made by others and outside articles found, albeit not written by professors. Second, how many other Marvel related pages have scholarly articles as support for it? If we use your reasoning for deleting this article, 99% of the articles dealing with comics would currently be subject to deletion and I'm not seeing any of those 99% of the articles being subject to deletion discussion, which leads me to believe that this article in particular is being targeted and the absence of secondary evidence being used as an excuse albeit most other article dealing with Marvel don't have secondary evidence currently (again, with those articles not even being mentioned in deletion prompt). If you're going to argue that the absense of secondary evidence or scholarly articles requires deletion, go ahead and start the deletion discussion on 50% at least of Wikipedia material (and not just marvel). Also it's just not that important a term in comics either? Well, considering the term is used to describe the most powerful mutuants and has been incorporated into the X-Men United movie, how is the term not important. It is part of the ranking of the power level of mutants. If you want to expand the article to incorporate all other qualifications, like Alpha level or Betta level, please do so, but don't just delete the article that has been worked on and discussed in 2 archives and more than 2 years. Instead of giving up on the article entirely and deleating the article that you don't like, how about proposing expansion of it and work on it so that it corresponds more to your liking. It is not beyond salvation and it's not totally worthless. The term has no substantial cultural impact? Again, 80% of comic book characters in both DC and Marvel have no substantial cultural impact aside from big ones like Superman, Batman, perhaps the main X-Men team, Fantastic Four, etc. So, by your reasoning, 80% of comic book pages should be deleted? Would you like to start that process right now just because you find this one particular article lacking? How about improving it and adding alpha and beta description and incorporating the Professor X's files on mutants? Redirect to Mutant article would work if it made any mention of omega-level mutant. If it has a description of omega-level mutant, I would not be opposed to the redirect. But, currently, the Mutant article that this article was redirected to made no mention of omega-level mutants. Fiction is not fact. Duh? Fiction is not fact, that's correct, but the entire Mutant universe is fiction, not fact? If you mean that omega-level mutant definition has been entirely created by wikipedians with nothing in the comic books, you'd be wrong. No, there has not been any point at which a character in Marvel gave an exact definition, but there have been mutants named as omega-level mutants and the definition is not just invented, but is taken from the descriptions of those characters that were named as omega-level mutants in the comics. So, it's not pure invention or fan fiction of Wikipedia editors but stems from characters who have been clearly been identified as omega-level mutants and then with their description and abilities being accurately described. All that the Wikipedia editors did was put two and two together. Nothing has been created out of thin air (as evidenced by the resistance to adding suspected omega-level mutants to the article). There's nothing worth keeping here, and, given that as far as I can tell no-one has actually documented it properly outside of Wikipedia, no way to write an article on this subject. Again, I beg to differ. While I agree that the article can be slimmed down and perhaps moved to a different page and combined with another article, the description is valid given that it is unlikely that it will just be defined in a monologue by anyone in the comics. So, given that the characters have been identified, it's not difficult to use those characters' descriptions as part of the definition for the omega-level mutant. While I'm by no means putting anyone down, so please do not attack me for accusing you of anything or attacking your personally, I'm just arguing with the points you made, not actually attacking you personally. As such, just because you did not find any documentation, doesn't mean that there is no documentation or that there will be no documentation in the future and to just delete this article with no part of it preserved after more than 2 years of fine-tuning seems rather rash action just on the impetus of one editor. --RossF18 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You're using the absense of scholarly articles on this topic as prompt to deleate it? What do you mean by scholarly article - do you mean thesis type of articles written by professors at a university level or just newspaper articles?" No we mean basic, out-of-universe secondary sources that discuss the topic. And those just don't exist. Therefore, according to Wikipedia notability guidelines, this article shouldn't exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my entire post. Even if you mean secondary sources, you would need to delet 80% of the comic book articles based on your reasoning because 80% of the articles, at least, have no secondary sources. --RossF18 (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we should probably do that. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and light merge into Mutant (Marvel Comics) - a similar discussion that led to this afd can be found here. It was first regarding all powerlevels mentioned within comics though some good reasoning came up as to why that would be rather unwise. A brief mention of the implementing of mutant powerlevels within comics and handbooks in the Mutant page should be sufficient for this information. -- Paulley (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as term has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Marvel canon.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Uncle G. And agree with Paulley to a degree, the most this material warrants is a brief mention in the Mutant (Marvel Comics) article. - J Greb (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. This is a vaguely-defined term that is mostly fanbased. JuJube (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and light merge into Mutant (Marvel Comics) per Paulley - much of the article itself seems to be OR, but I have seen the concept mentioned in numerous comics (or was that Alpha-level mutants? see, even I'm not sure) so undoubtedly the Mutant article would be a good article for people to be redirected to. A lot of the content might need to be deleted though, but perhaps not all of it. BOZ (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mutant (Marvel Comics). What little content there is that is not original research should be added to the Mutant article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What he said is what I meant. ;) BOZ (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RossF18's extensive reasoning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - Agreed with Ross that this is a non-repeated topic. This is a topic that is prominent, featured thru multiple mediums and additional external sources of IGN cited. A merge would help to better establish it context. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. The article is terribly written, but this is an important concept in Marvel Comics publications. Doczilla (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's not integral to understanding X-Men comics. I've read a number of X-Men comics, but the first time I heard it was in X3, where it was a throwaway detail to establish "Here's how powerful certain characters are". It's more in-universe jargon than meaningful terminology. Out-of-universe notability of the term also hasn't been established yet. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really. So you read a number of X-Men comics, but never read Phoenix Endsong or X-Men: Deadly Genesis? Even if you are recent to reading comics, these are just two of the recent comic arcs that use the term. And Iceman has been named as omega-level mutant by Emma a while ago. So, having read comics and not encountering the term speaks more to your own reading than the term usage. In-universe jargon, hmm, that has been used by different writers on a number of different books. A way to convey the strength of a mutant in a few words in a word bubble is rather meaningful I'd imagine, and that's why writers are using it. Out of universe use has, as you yourself admit, has been seen in X3 with the ranking from 5 to 1 used only for clarity sake for those unfamilar with X-Men comics. Further establishment needs further time.--RossF18 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A way to convey the strength of a mutant in a few words in a word bubble". That's the definition of in-universe jargon. "Further establishment needs further time". No, its out-of-universe notability needs to be established now. X3 doesn't count because it's another work of fiction. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all three points. Use by characters in works of fiction, stemming from the same source does not establish real world context or notability. It only establishes the jargon as a common element in the fictions.
And if the real world notability cannot be established at this time, to defend the article on the grounds that it "needs further time" or any variation of "notability will happen at a later date" is crystal balling. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information is vital information is the X-Men universe. As such, it should either be kept or (preferably) merged into the Mutant (Marvel Comics) page. I will never understand the desire to eliminate information, regardless of the increasingly bureaucratic Wikipedia guidelines. This discussion should be in a merge article, not AFD. Keep, or merge. DestradoZero 07:13, 27 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, invoking WP:SNOW—Hate to do the snow-fall twice in one day, but it is justified. This was speedy deleted four times before being prodded, which landed it here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Riley[edit]

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

The subject of this article doesn't meet WP:Bio. There are no references to her other than self-published ones. Merenta (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 'showcased on YouTube'? Sheesh! Fails WP:N and of course WP:RS. JJL (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... she is in college and produced a 'video' with 3 classmates? I don't know what the BAMA Festival is, but I don't see any references reflecting notability... and a lot suggesting a lack thereof. Epthorn (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that BAMA refers to the Bristol Academy of Media Arts and the "BAMA Festival" mentioned was a celebration of their students' work, and thus not an award that confers notability. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of its subject. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. An AfD classic. Apart from "showcased on YouTube", we've also got "Corinne Riley, also known as CR" (wonder why?) and the first two entries on the 'Videography' are as camerawoman and runner. Marvellous. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails biographical guidelines, notability guidelines, it is not reliably sourced, no verification enabled. Rt. 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability proven at this point. Student films don't make one notable, even if someone does post it to YouTube. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough for a biography at this point.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:31, 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, yet another non-notable Internet game. GlassCobra 09:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Hustle[edit]

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

I don't know why this article exists almost a year. It only describes a childish Flash game that similar with bejeweled, only to have different icons. It does not assert any notability materials to have its own article here. Not to mention of zero sources in the article which violates WP:V. Dekisugi (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But the other similar 'childish' flash games have their own entries. I can't understand the above entry's animosity to this site in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mungapug (talk • contribs) 10:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a non-notable game lacking reliable sources unless anyone can explain otherwise. "But the other similar 'childish' flash games have their own entries" is WP:WAX and maybe these should get AfDs as well...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see further down, switched to delete) [10] and [11] scrape over the notability hurdle for me, the Jay is Games review in particular gives some good material for citations. Introducing it to the videogame project and adding categories should help get it up and running. Someone another (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All links are blog entries which are unreliable sources. Dekisugi (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're blog entries on larger sites, the writing standards of which are inherited, rather than standalone 'I didn't go to work today, felt ill' personal sites. Someone another (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you look on the gadgetress' profile you'll see some photos and her explaining that she wanted an anime-style avatar, but staff are supposed to have photos - it's an endorsed post on a larger site. Jay Is Games is probably the largest and most reliable provider of flash-game information and has a staff list, I'm assuming that writer is on the staff since he has submitted a photo and has his name (I'll look at the staff list). Someone another (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't find the staff list at Jay's, it's either removed or exceptionally well hidden. Regardless, the site holds awards, reviews games and is a trusted source of information for people seeking info on casual games.Someone another (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite finding two sources which I'd call reliable, only one covers the game in any depth. I've spent a lot of time combing the web for sources and those two are it. In order to write even a basic article on a video game you really need two proper reviews and good primary documentation just to nail down the basics and get some feedback for the reception section - one review, one mention and no documentation doesn't cut it. Defaulting to "'multiple' reliable sources = keep" doesn't alter the fact that there's simply not enough information to deal with the game in an encyclopedic fashion. Digg it, StumbleUpon etc. are there to provide links to entertaining sites and games, there's no burning need for this game to have a WP article if the sources aren't there. Someone another (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's odd how the majority of the content was removed, then the entry was slated for deletion. Perhaps someone simply dislikes this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.93.82 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the content was removed by me when I was rewriting the page in an attempt to save it, since the 'cultural impact' section was complete garbage, the term 'LMFAO' which had been left there for awhile summed it up. That happened after it was listed for deletion. Someone another (talk) 21:27, 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 Redirect. --Tone 20:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've Got You Under My Skin (Charmed episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I've Got You Under My Skin (Charmed episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV episode nothing more then Plot summary and random trivia. See conversation here about issues Talk:List_of_Charmed_episodes. As far as I can tell nothing has been done to improve articles. Ridernyc (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.

The result was delete. There was a clear consensus for deletion. Further, the article has no significant secondary sources. TerriersFan (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Square Center[edit]

Very non-notable mall in California, turns up hardly any Google hits, much less reliable sources. At 167,089 square feet (!), it falls way short of super-regional status (which, based on AfDs past, I'm finally starting to accept as a criterion for inclusion). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing really relevant to say except the fact that I needed info on this mall and was very glad to find this article here. If that happened to me, maybe there are others who'd find it useful too, as average as the mall may be. In my opinion it's hard to assess the importance of a mall. There are plenty of articles on average malls here and many of them are probably largely useless, apart from exceptions like myself who need that info. JMHO.Aetherea (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another small US strip mall. I have actually shopped here many times and don't know of anything notable. Probably the orientation as an outlet mall from the presence of Talbots Outlet and Nordstrom Rack is the most notable feature. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usefulness of information is not a reason to keep. There is nothing notable about this particular mall. Pastordavid (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No non-trivial reliable sources suggest no notability. Cool Hand Luke 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:09, 27 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. GlassCobra 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plasti-Blades[edit]

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

non-notable advertising article AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for more edits or Re-merge back to original. See talk page for more on this. Reasonable sounding attempt to create an article out of it, and writer said it may or may not work. Also sounds like (based on the talk page discussion) the originator is aware of the issue and will (may?) work on it. If better info is coming, let's give it the chance. If not, re-merge it. ΨνPsinu 20:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He remarked that over a year ago. Seems unlikely to be finished. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete instead of keep. Oops. When I saw the date my brain processed "November 23" as "a few weeks ago", not "a very long time ago". Sort of forgot that this is 2007, not 2006 (this is not unusual for me). Thanks for the added clarification. ΨνPsinu 21:42, 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. Hut 8.5 17:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wicca This Way Comes[edit]

Something Wicca This Way Comes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV episode nothing more then Plot summary and random trivia. See conversation here about issues Talk:List_of_Charmed_episodes. As far as I can tell nothing has been done to improve articles. Ridernyc (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cause the article is already perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.166.239 (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This non-vote is by a vandal who was blocked for being a general nuisance. JuJube (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to LOE. Plot, trivia & nothing more, with no demonstration of possible notability. Eusebeus (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:EPISODE and nothing but plot regurgitation. Already covered by LOE so no need to merge or redirect. Collectonian (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because it is the pilot episode, alternatively redirect to the LoE per WP:EPISODE and the lack of improvement in the last half a year. – sgeureka t•c 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Charmed is notable but the series premiere of the show isn't? This episode was covered by[12] The Boston Globe[13], The Denver Post[14], and Sarasota Herald-Tribune[15]. --Pixelface (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is the pilot for the entire series, not to mention the article has much more than the short limited list Ridernyc gave. To delete this episode article but allow episode articles for other series is unfair and biased. Artemisboy (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Pilot episodes of notable shows are verifiable and worth keeping. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I generally am in favor of merging/redirecting episodes, but this one is notable as the pilot of a major series. Sources are available as noted above. Does, however, need some clean-up and the sources added. Pastordavid (talk) 17:39, 27 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. Fails WP:EPISODE and lacks any WP:V sources. Pigman☿ 20:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Not Morphing[edit]

Thank You for Not Morphing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable TV episode nothing more then Plot summary and random trivia. See conversation here about issues Talk:List_of_Charmed_episodes. As far as I can tell nothing has been done to improve articles. Ridernyc (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Passable content and verifiable and perhaps somebody cares about this. --Lockley (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the LOE. This is just a repository for trivia and other non-notable in-universe details. Episode itself is not notable. Eusebeus (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:EPISODE and nothing but plot regurgitation. Already covered by LOE so no need to merge or redirect. Collectonian (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the LoE per WP:EPISODE and the lack of improvement in the last half a year. Seems like an abandoned article. – sgeureka t•c 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article may need improving but is just as valid as the many other episode articles on Wikipedia for other series. Artemisboy (talk) 20:17, 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 as a hoax. BLACKKITE 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Decapitated Horses[edit]

Valley of Decapitated Horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Odd page, not sure if it appears notable. It was tagged for speedy deletion with the claim of being a hoax. I don't know what to do with it, but not sure that it should be speedily deleted, so I've brought it here. I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google turns up nothing, there is no mention on the Earache site. Hoax probable- something on Earache would have some mention, surely? J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In case you're curious, this is about a band (got to point that out, folks! I thought for a minute that this might be a real estate development named by someone whose thoughts run free in the same fields as mine.) The instant article contains little outside information confirming notability per WP:MUSIC. If it ain't on any of the metal sites, it may well be a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible hoax, no reliable sources on Google.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every day many bands are created with names which might create confusion by being confused with some real-world thing. For that reason, any article about a band with a name which sounds like it might be a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, or whatever, should have (band) appended to the name of the Wikipedia article. This should be moved to Valley of Decapitated Horses (band) in the event it survives AFD. Edison (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. Something should not be preemptively disambiguated- it should be given the (band) suffix only if something more notable than itself wants the title. For instance, a band named 'Lancashire' would be less notable than the county, and so would be disambiguated. However, although a hypothetical band named Rankenshire sounds like a (rather odd) county, because no other article requires the title Rankenshire, the band can have the article, providing they're notable. If this was not adhered to, we would end up with the ridiculous situation of Rankenshire redirecting to Rankenshire (band). J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, including on the sites of their alleged record labels. Probable hoax and, if not, not notable. Merenta (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I flagged this one. Not sure whether Wikipedia rules/etiquette mean that I should or should not comment here but my thoughts should be obvious anyhow. There is no mention of the band on Earache, despite a complete list of their releases, so these at least are fictitional. Similarly they have released nothing through Relapse, hence another part of the article is fictional. Google produces nothing either. I conclude from this that the band doesn't exist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:37, 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 redirect to Fresno Unified School District. Wizardman 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Lawless Elementary School[edit]

Toby Lawless Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think the mention that Kevin Federline attended this elementary school is enough to make it notable. Dougie WII (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as just another primary school which fails to meet sufficient notability requirements. If we are judging on notable alumi, then I would imagine nearly every primary school at some point has had someone notable taught there. Regardless of this, primary schools themselves generally aren't notable, and for those that say every school is notable - try authoring a fully comprehensive article for your average elementry/primary school that can stand up against the notability requirements for articles. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons stated by Bungle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~NeonFire372~ (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim about Kevin Federline isn't sourced and if it were, it still wouldn't be enough to get it over the line. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fresno Unified School District per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Fresno Unified School District. No valid justification has been provided not to pursue a merge as per precedent. Alansohn (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Fresno Unified School District as per TerriersFan and Alansohn. Noroton (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Merge/redirect would be fine also. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. The notability argument for elementary schools is played out, just merge it to the appropriate place and move along. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:33, 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 garbage. DS (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fineberg Mushrooms[edit]

Contested prod, appears to be a hoax coupled with a racist joke. Pagrashtak 13:41, 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit[edit]

Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:CBALL. Speculation about a yet-to-be-released game, that was apparently announced a week ago. The "sources" consist of a link to a (non-English) poster, and a link to a blog. Neither are WP:V or WP:RS. The article is an unmitigated mess as multiple editors insert and remove speculation and slag each other off for messing the article up. Until such time as there is anything more than fevered speculation about this game, it would be best if there were no article Mayalld (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The page has a website, pictures and a scan from shonen jump. It's pretty obvious that this will be a game, this is not Cyrstal ball information, it's been confirmed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 13:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that there will be a game is undisputed. Beyond that single fact, everything else is pure speculation. Mayalld (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, I have to agree. An article about a Shonen Jump announcement would serve as a reliable source, as would any press coverage. Until we have that, though, we can't keep the article. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty other articles regarding video games that don't have much information available at the time. Over time more information will be available and the article's author and editors could contribute and cite that information whenever it comes. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither is a link to a non-policy essay. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More information has been released in the latest famitsu magazine. It clearly states that the game is coming out for the Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox360. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.55.192 (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Flaming, edit wars, and untidiness are no reason to delete an article. Simple protections and temporary blocks can straighten that out in a matter of minutes. Additionally, though I haven't been around for quite a while, I'm pretty sure a webpage set up by the game's publisher and Shonen Jump coverage (albeit just one page) must mean something as far as WP:RS and WP:V go. There may be little coverage on the game in general, but we do have enough sources at this time to prove it's not just speculation. As a final note, I would like to suggest merging if possible, but I don't think there's a page suitable for the job. If one were to be (or has already been made), I'd gladly change my comment to merge. // DecaimientoPoético 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crystal ball doesn't apply - it's verifiable that it's been announced, and it would merit an article if it had been released already (it will, lamentably, sell well I don't doubt). --Gwern (contribs) 04:48 22 December 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep. As stated multiple times before, the information in the Wikiarticle is no speculation, nor is it crystal ball work. The info has been gathered from an Shonen Jump article, which I would think is a reliable source. Even though this article is a stub, it shouldn't be deleted for that reason; instead try to improve the things you think are not good about the article, to make it better. -Jort227 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I second that .... SSJ 5 (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. (jarbarf) (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis has to be kept because there are many people looking for some information from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogeta90 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - A trailer for the game was released December 24th, 2007. You can view it on Youtube. I think that more than proves it's coming out and should stay. Goten X (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - YouTube isn't exactly the best site to use when proving a point on Wikipedia. It's very easy to make false videos, and such a thing has been done several times before with Dragon Ball Z games. // DecaimientoPoético 22:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A trailer has been released on youtube, as mentioned above. Thus, confirming the game's existence. Please work on improving the article in the mean time. 216.99.53.158 (talk) 03:56, 27 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.   jj137 ♠ 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behead the Prophet, No Lord Shall Live[edit]

Behead the Prophet, No Lord Shall Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Easily fails all but one notability requirement of WP:BAND, and the only one that's even close is #5, and that's easily debatable. No third-party references, either, so WP:V is also a concern. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a mention in the very reliable Pitchfork Media, but they do not seem to be notable. Google is choked with references to the Deicide song of the same name. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as seeming to fail WP:MUSIC despite the existence of third-party sources. Pitchfork is full of stuff about obscure bands and artists, though, right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every day many bands are created with names which might create confusion by being confused with some real-world thing. For that reason, any article about a band with a name which sounds like it might be a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, or whatever, should have (band) appended to the name of the Wikipedia article. This should be moved to Behead the Prophet, No Lord Shall Live (band) in the event it survives AFD. This will prevent the wasting of time on the part of those who might think it was some religious movement, so they don't have to look at the article to learn it is just a band. Edison (talk) 16:53, 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. Keilana(recall) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enochian Theory[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Prod declined by creator. tomasz. 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what guidelines you have been reading, but look at the references. A few articles in printed media, plus a batch of reviews ([16] [17] [18]) online. There's enough to get a fairly good article out of this, never mind enough to keep. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • same ones as you. i don't see how they pass any of the criteria you just linked. the print media are trivial mentions, the online ones aren't very good sources (blogs 'n' zines, as Paul Erik correctly characterised them). tomasz. 14:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I retract the comment. I'll accept that they are borderline, but I am leaning towards keep. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering why none of the references cited (including Rock & Metal and Music magazines) have an entry on Wikipedia. Sorry to be skeptical here. All the linked references appear to be blogs and webzines, which we do not usually take to be sound reliable sources in helping to establish notability. My skepticism also comes from my discovery that there is a complete absence of this band in a Google news archive search. At the moment at least, I would lean towards delete. see new comment below --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Obviously, I can't see the print media, but the ezines are fine- ezines are appropriate sources for minor metal bands. Blogs, no, they are never appropriate sources, but the ezines are fine. Yeah, nothing in the Google News archive- I'm not pretending these are famous (I had never heard of them before seeing this AfD, and I am not un-aquainted with the scene) just that they are notable. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every day many bands are created with names which might create confusion by being confused with some real-world thing. For that reason, any article about a band with a name which sounds like it might be a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, religious movement, scientific theory or whatever, should have (band) appended to the name of the Wikipedia article. This should be moved to Enochian Theory (band) in the event it survives AFD, to avoid the wasting of time of those who might click on the article not realizing it is just a band. Edison (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. i have to disagree with this because i can't see why a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, religious movement, scientific theory or whatever should somehow be given priority over a band that has chosen the same word for their name. Let the —(band) disambiguation persist in cases where there genuinely is another thing sharing the name; otherwise the potential confusion with some real-world thing may be quickly solved by reading the article. tomasz. 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to neutral because I may have been under a false impression that webzines were not considered reliable sources (see J Milburn's comment above). Also, a user added this link into the article which provides at least some evidence of coverage in the print media. I am still concerned about inadequate sourcing here (and I also have strong suspicions that one of the editors/defenders of the article, Mr B Bond has a conflict of interest here since he appears to be the same person adding updates at the band's official site), but think I should leave this to others to decide. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about conflict of interest, but Mr B Bond seems to be acting in good faith, and if there is a conflict of interest, it does not seem to be having a negative effect on the article, so I consider that a moot point. According to the article, the band's music video has received airplay on the only three UK music channels on which a metal video would ever really find itself, and the article does need a little work (primarily because of Mr B Bond's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, but we all need to learn somewhere!) but I am still leaning towards keep. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have gone through the article and cleaned it up a little. I now I have the odd feeling I may have actually seen this band at some point- the name is familiar, and I have definitely seen SpeedTheory, who they toured with. In any case, I have noticed that the article mentions several big name magazines that have mentioned the band- if this is true, I think there is no doubt that they are notable. J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm seeing aminor band, not a notable one. Mbisanz (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete -- it claims a UK-European tour is planned for 2008; has a CD out; but references can not be verified as they are dead links. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Bearian. Cannot find independent, reliable sources to back up notability claims. Keeper | 76 20:27, 28 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 nat.utoronto 12:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A City Warning III: Final Warning[edit]

A City Warning III: Final Warning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of Band unclearCity warming (talk) 12:41, 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. Singularity 06:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John_Rarity[edit]

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

Questionable notability; I feel page needs to go through AfD Marcus22 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Well, the subject matter sure looks impressive. But are two papers from the 1990's and a part-authorship of a book sufficient for an academic? My feeling is not. But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise and would then change my vote. Marcus22 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the info and views. Esp. David Eppstein. I'm convinced and I'll change my vote to a Keep. Marcus22 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seven papers with over 100 citations, one as recent as 2002 (it's unlikely, given that record, that he's slowed down more recently, and more likely that his newer papers just haven't had time to collect as many citations). The 2002 paper made major newspaper stories: USA Today, The Telegraph. Senior faculty member with a very repectable publication record, looks like a pass of WP:PROF #3 and #4 to me. And with this award, possibly also WP:PROF #6. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep independent sources and citation info linked by David Eppstein are enough to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this easily passes WP:PROF without question. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per David Eppstein: notable prof, at a reputable University, with solid work, and with recognition. But the article needs some cleanup and markup. — Turgidson (talk) 14:27, 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. Singularity 06:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and is not notable. Story previously removed belongs on another page as it is more general and notable to the whole scene not just this promotion. Much unsourced info otherwise removed. Notability tag unanswered for two months. !! Justa Punk !! 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom GetDumb (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication that this is anything other than a couple of guys duking it out in their backyards. While it's probably bigger than that, the lack of sources or references establishing notability leaves too much room for doubt. Lankiveil (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, does not establish notability. Nikki311 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the face of global televised smack downs these guys are lucky to get room for paid advertisements of their shows in free newspapers... Notability is nowhere nearly established. Garrie 01:50, 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 Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 09:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Development[edit]

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

I prod'ed this based on what sounds like original research. An early version had little or no content, so someone afterwards tagged it with CSD. The author expanded the article a little more and removed the prod. They also removed the CSD, but at the moment, I can't find a classification for CSD. Yngvarr 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn User:Uncle G has made fantastic progress on this article. See my comments below, under my earlier (and now struck) comment. Should have added this comment before I added that comment, but I'll keep the strike for audit trail purposes. Sorry for cluttering up your watchlist with two edits! Yngvarr 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—This reads like an essay, which is supported by the author having signed the article (removed). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to develop an article on a fairly new term "Talent Development" which is being discussed by the Human resource gurus all around. A separate multi billion industry is slowly developing around tis term. Being a nascent term, obviously it will sound like an essay. If this is not the correct way, let me know, how to do it? Empxtrack (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, try and make the entry more encyclopedic, which means remove personal bias and first-hand research. Find some notable sources for information about this term, including (but not limited to) articles written by the 'gurus' you mentioned. You need something on there that isn't just your opinion. Hope that helps. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search google for "talent development" on microsoft site, you will find that the authors have used this term almost Two Thousand times. Doesn't it signifies that the term is getting popular and it do need to find a place at Wikipedia. Empxtrack (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is the case, perhaps you can use the microsoft article as research. Cite it as a source. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't the place for cataloging new terminology. -- KingNewbs (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have said, this article has been much-improved. I no longer see any reason to delete it. -- KingNewbs (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, unencyclopedic tone, essay, how-to, fails WP:NOT, neologism. I wouldn't object if an actual encyclopedia article could be written here with verifiable citations to reliable sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been cleaned up significantly, and trimmed into a stub, but at least there is the beginnings of references. I'm just pointing this out for current and/or future participants; but no change in my own stance. Yngvarr 17:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the fantastic work of User:Uncle G, this has developed significantly, so I'm posting a comment on speedy close and keep. Yngvarr 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it can be made into a good article. This is the first time I've actually run into one of these that's non-sports related that I actually know something about (!) and it's not really a new term (hence not WP:NEO but is important in human capital management theory/application. This would be very useful if done well. The stub is a good way to start it. ΨνPsinu 20:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus on what to do. It is probably notable, with some sources to back it up, but needs extensive cleanup. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neosocialism[edit]

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

The article lacks a coherent defintion, that 'neosocialism' would constitute a more or less coherent political tendency of its own. The word 'neo' can be prefixed to virtually any 'Ism', and we can't have an article for every ism that has ever had 'neo' prefixed to it. Soman (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, however, the french interwiki seems far more coherent. It could perhaps be agreed that the English article be a mirror of that one, weeding out all other essayist material. --Soman (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WikiProject Politics has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to socialism unless it can clearly be established that the concept is substantially different, otherwise keep as, even if not 100% clear, the concept is defined well enough to be the topic of speeches and published discussion. Torc2 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please no merge. The main article is long and adding this mess into it won't help anyone. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately Wiki doesn't make exceptions for that. I really wish it did. If the article cannot stand alone, it must be merged; if it is not merged due to size and cannot stand alone, it must be deleted. This unfortunate dichotomy is forced upon us until Wiki policies catch up to the fact that a single topic may be too long to fit on a single article page, but until then, the only choices are merge or delete. My advice is to go to the talk pages of the policies forcing this unworkable situation and voice your displeasure loudly over and over until the rules are updated to something more realistic. Torc2 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the term is supported reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the text is kept please insert tags like {[cleanup}} or translation-requested or something like that. The current form it has very low value a reader. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—Not to mention {{cleanup-afd}} as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OMG what a mess. I agree with nominator. Maybe this needs to be a disamb page. This term is clearly used to refer to several absolutely distinct poli-eco views. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:49, 28 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.   jj137 ♠ 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy[edit]

Differences between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

an unreferenced OR essay, rather than an encyclopediatic article. The contents of the Democratic Socialism article clearly illustrate the problems of drawing a npov distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. Soman (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete uncited, redundant to the parent articles, and of a highly suspect level of original research in essay form. Strongly encourage the article author to contribute to the parent articles on DS and SD, as s/he obviously has an interest in the subjects and good writing skills. -Markeer 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:WikiProject Politics has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is valuable as makes clear several similarities and differences between the two movements/ideologies. Remember that at one point in history democratic socialism and social democracy were interchangeable. But this is no longer the case and so this article is necessary, although it needs some work. (Demigod Ron (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment, wikipedia is not the place to launch a hypothesis. You might, for whatever purpose, want to keep the two concepts separate and push for the position that 'democratic socialism' would constitute a separate political tendency of its own. In reality that is not the case. --Soman (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I though it was interesting and informative. Lobojo (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The project's goal is to write an accurate encyclopaedia, in contrast, not to contain content that you as a reader cannot check and that isn't actually a part of the general corpus of human knowledge, no matter how interesting you may find that content to be. Please address the issues of verifiability and original research, and show that the article is verifiable and not original research by pointing to sources that cover this subject. Your rationale as given holds no water at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Markeer - totally unsourced and OR. Torc2 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no references in the article. It appears to be an OR essay. Majoreditor (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment one ref has now been added, but that one only provides a basic definition to the term 'Social Democracy'. However, 1) this does not provide any further point towards any clear differentation between two separate concepts, and 2) 'Social Democracy' isn't really the concept questioned, its a relatively well defined political term. 'Democratic Socialism' on the other hand, as displayed by the Democratic socialism article, is extremly difficult to find a clear delimitation to. Moreover, the point initially made that "The terms democratic socialism and social democracy have often been used interchangeably, and many have considered them synonymous until recently. Now the term social democracy refers to an ideology that is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with some social reforms (such as the welfare state), intended to make it more equitable and humane.", doesn't really go consistent with a source clarifying that that social democracy as we know it today emerged at the time of World War One. --Soman (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, not an encyclopedical explanation. Generally, WP should avoid "differences between X and Y" articles - such an information belongs into respective articles. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:28, 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 bold redirect to Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. Non-admin closure. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees VS. Red Sox[edit]

Yankees VS. Red Sox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is redundant. See: Yankees-Red Sox rivalry Would simply redirect, but is article title implies one game more than a long time rivalry. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 08:57, 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 all. Singularity 06:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neldë[edit]

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

Not notable

Andareed (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all relate to the article in question:

Lempe Taures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Soran III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cadran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Places from the Neldë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cadran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tasardur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eothain‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hess (city) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Verinor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taureheren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nelde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:Infobox Neldë place‎ (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Neldë place‎|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Andareed (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm having trouble finding any sources for any of this, so IMO it pretty clearly fails WP:N and WP:V. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These do not appear to reference a notable work of fiction. JavaTenor (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all nn and relies on a link to a public Wiki. I can't find any reliable sources so most likely original research so fails WP:NOR. Sting_au Talk 12:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom (as the original {{Prod}}-er of this article) Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I can't find any indication that these works have been published, though the fact that the title(s?) of the work(s?) isn't mentioned anywhere in the articles makes this difficult. I note that the articles have trouble deciding whether the author's first name is Arelius or Aurelius, but neither search picks up anything bilbiographic. The one story on the linked wikipage is marked as a first draft. In short, by all indications, fails WP:BK. To be honest, the articles read like worldbuilding notes by the author, which is fine and well, but that belongs on HIS wiki not this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The author has not made changes to indicate context of significance, so the whole set will be a work of fiction of non importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toss them all into a fiery volcano: One article for this unpublished, unabashedly explicit LOtR ripoff would be too much, let alone a raft of them. Fails WP:BK, WP:OR, WP:V and probably WP a few others too.  RGTraynor  22:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Eothain to Éothain, Delete all others per nom. Tevildo (talk) 13:15, 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 delete. Spellcast (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Emanuele Cella[edit]

Carmine Emanuele Cella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns; Searching for "Carmine Emanuele Cella" brings up approximately 305 ghits. While I could find evidence that he was a special mention at the Ibla Grand Prize, I could either find no evidence of the other competitions at all or not in conjunction with his name. I couldn't find any sources stating he had collaborated with Devia or Pavarotti, or toured with Marco Messeri either. PirateMink 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the article itself indicates a measure of notability, it doesn't seem to translate into sources. --Stormbay (talk) 22:47, 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, borderline notability and written like a blatant ad. GlassCobra 08:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shente Shih Tzu[edit]

Shente Shih Tzu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dog breeder; not sure how to judge notability. Was prod, contested on talk page by author. Needs considerable cleanup if notable. Rigadoun (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This kennel won awards as top shih-tzu kennel in Canada two years in a row. But the article is written in a promotional tone, complete with pictures of its top specimens. But since we do not yet have notability guidelines for kennels, I remain neutral for the time being. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:08, 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 Snowball keep. I know I've gotten yelled at before for applying WP:SNOW way too swiftly, but this one seems a harmless enough closure to me, especially given the precedent that villages are considered inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ab_Lench[edit]

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

Delete No sources or references. Nothing to show any form of noteability whatsoever. Just as a note, this AfD is a test case-- if it is successful, I will be starting to do group nominations of the hundreds of similar articles like this one, most of which consist of 1-3 lines of text and an infobox and no sources or references. Jtrainor (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sure more could be added to the article about the town and external links could be added, but I think this is encyclopedic content. Useight (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The thing about tiny villages, especially in countries with rich histories, is that there is generally a great deal to be said about them, it just simply needs to be found. Geographical stubs won't get bigger if they keep getting deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a nice thought in theory, but in practice, these stubs are created and then almost never touched ever again. A random sampling just in the category this one comes from reveals dozens of similar one-line articles. Jtrainor (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The consensus is that geographical locations are inherently notable, is it not? And references aren't hard to come by, I've found and added one in a matter of moments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Consensus cannot override core policy. Jtrainor (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Notability is a guideline rather than policy, which "...is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense..." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and the 'occasional exception' does not cover hundreds of articles like this one. That's far more than occasional. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sure that if someone went into a British library in the region they'd have something on the village... besides, geographical stubs are notable, I'd say. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How can one tell if something is noteable if it has no sources or references? Jtrainor (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So add some references, nobody agrees with your view that real places should be deleted and arguing the toss here won't change that. There are nearly 5,000 google hits for this place, you did a search and tried to add sources yourself before taking this to AfD, right? That's what the deletion procedure says you should do. I spent five minutes doing just that an added four or five more sources and useful information to the article. Nick mallory (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Insofar as articles like this are a problem, improvement, not deletion, is the solution. Maxamegalon2000 06:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So the nominator wants to delete hundreds of British villages? Good luck with that. It's to be hoped the consensus on this nomination saves him from wasting his own time - and everyone else's. Real places are inherently notable and every village has sources, references and history worth recording, instead of trying to delete broad swathes of actual places, maybe the nominator could search for some sources, improve some articles and, you know, contribute to building the encyclopedia? Ab Lench gets a mention in the Domesday Book of 1086, so William the Conqueror thought it was writing about anyway. Nick mallory (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's snowing in Ab Lench. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the article no longer meets the criteria for the 'test case', perhaps the nominator wishes to change his/her opinion to Speedy Keep and withdraw the nomination.207.69.137.23 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real, recognised places are automatically notable. On the subject of British villages, there is something to say about any village, even the tiniest ones. All it needs is an editor with an interest in the local area willing to write a little and do a little research. J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to have to ask the people saying 'keep, real places are inherently noteable' to quote a policy that backs them up, and also prove why this allows them to somehow bypass sourcing requirements. And if every village has possible references, those references should have been added when the article was created. Jtrainor (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those rationales are wrong. Read User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability is not a blanket for an explanation of why almost all cities, towns, and even villages in the world will satisfy the PNC. Then read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for what you should have done before nominating an article for deletion and what you should do when you see an article that cites no sources. Nick mallory has already explained this to you, above. Treating the location of sources as Somebody Else's Problem is not helping to get the encyclopaedia written. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) I'm a little out of sync with Wikipedia, but this page mentions it. Quote: "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size". In any case, let us use common sense here. There is going to be something to be written about any village of any size- either it is historical, meaning that there will be historical mentions (books like the Doomsday Book, or the Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales) or it has just sprung up, in which case local (and maybe national) newspapers will cover it in some depth. As my examples above show, it just takes someone with a little commitment, and preferably an interest in the area in question (access to local archives is even more useful- sadly, I didn't have that) and an article on just about any settlement could be bulked out, providing that it is 'officially recognised'. Even if it isn't, if someone has written about it, then let it have a page too. The pages still need sources if they are ever to be half decent articles, we just know that real places deserve articles, even if they themselves no longer exist. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the points made by Nick mallory, Uncle G, and others, WP:OUTCOMES is clear on community consensus. Under Places: Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size. When these articles are found, improvement is the answer, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Reliable sources exist, and villages are notable regardless of size.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a precedent for keeping articles, even if stubs, about geographic locations, hamlets, or villages. A bot created stub articles about every location which is listed in the U.S. census. Many of those have since been expanded with info from history books and newspapers. They have all been kept in AFDs so far as I know. Scads of other articles about localities have been created based on entries in the 1911 Britannica, and have been kept in AFDs. In these two groups of articles, the requirement for verifiability was satisfied. In some cases hoaxers have created articles about nonexistent villages, which have been properly deleted, over the objection that "all gepgraphic locations are notable." I would insist on at least some reliable source as a reference, which this village seems to have. A problem with older references is that a village may have a name like "Oasis" or "Mill" or "Crossroads" or "The Ford of the River" or "Fortress" in a non-English language. and the reference might be to an entirely different geographic entity in the same country or political subunit of a country. A given province or country may have several villages with the same name, and references may be conflated. We sould insist that the reference actually applies to the same village described in the Wikipedia article, and that it does not conflate separate villages which co-existed or which existed in different eras. These concerns do not appear to apply to this one, but there have been recent AFDs where this was a problem. Edison (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - a consensus that we can safely say will not change. The only geographical location that I have ever seen deleted on Wikipedia was a copyvio. You can throw blue links out all you want...consensus isn't going to change. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Towns/villages are inherently notable. There's no such thing as a "non notable town." An important example of the "common sense" and "occasional exception" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 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. Incredibly notable. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Strong Keep. This nomination is utter nonsense and completely baseless in terms of policy. Natalee Holloway is clearly notable, as established in the previous nomination of this article. The case has been the subject of world wide media coverage for the previous 2.5 years and is used time and time again as a key example of media sensationalism and has been covered by dozens of reliable sources (the article currently contains over 90). This is not a biography as asserted by the nomination, but an article about the case and continued coverage of the disappearance. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the article will note how little biographical information there is. In fact, I don't believe any biographical information is outside the introduction paragraph. - auburnpilot talk 05:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete AuburnPilot's statement that this article has very little biographical information is exactly why this article has to go per WP:BIO. WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't understand policy, and have clearly not read the article. If you wish it to be moved to a more proper title, such as Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, that is one thing. However, saying that it must be deleted per WP:BIO is baseless. We may not have a biography of Elizabeth Smart, but we do have Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. This is no different. - auburnpilot talk 05:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note that I have filed a sock report on SesameRoad/WatchingYouLikeAHawk. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WatchingYouLikeAHawk. - auburnpilot talk 06:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. Much as I would love to support deletion, there is clear evidence of notability here - how many missing persons cases lead to a boycott from a state governor? However, since the article is clearly about the disappearance and not about Natalee Holloway herself, it should be moved to the appropriate title. (Compare Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, an article on a similar case.) Terraxos (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway, even though I think this is a ridiculously unimportant factor, since it seems to sway people. The article is still going to have 99% identical content, but I guess it won't be a "biography". Yay subtext. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N. There is unquestionably a bevy of sources that could be drawn from for this article - independent, reliable sources. Heck, the article has 94 of them as it is.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides more than ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. The nominator's WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST argument is an improper justification for deletion. This is a subject that has had enduring press coverage for over two years, as demonstrated by the article and the sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly bad faith nom about the well-known subject of a missing persons case. Though I'm not a fan of the media hyperbole surrounding the case, an article describing it in well-sourced and neutral detail is something that outweighs anything that's even close to deletion. Nate · (chatter) 08:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Rightly or wrongly, it would be hard to find anyone who has gotten more press coverage than her so she's totally notable. (although I wouldn't be against a title change to Natalee Holloway Case etc.) -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. In fact, this should be a speedy keep. The question of titling has been debated repeatedly on the article's talk page, and the consensus is to have the article under this title. Regardless of the Lindbergh baby and Elizabeth Smart, we do have an article for Joseph Force Crater, not the disappearance of Judge Crater. I think that editors should respect the consensus reached after considerable effort on the article's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an obvious keep, considering the amount of attention this subject has received in Aruba, the US, and elsewhere. However, I believe the focus should be on the case, so the title Natalee Holloway disappearance or some such thing may be more appropriate. But that could have been decided at requested moves.--Cúchullain t/c 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because they've closed the murder investigation doesn't make her non-notable. As for the analogies offered by the nominator, Elizabeth Smart is alive and back home, and the last thing that poor kid needs is a biography. As for the statement that there's "no biography of Charles Lindbergh, Jr.", it's not because he was "non-notable", but because that poor kid's life ended when he was less than 2 years old. Let's not be silly. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we're nominating things we wish weren't notable, I've got a long, long list. Mykej (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as above, but absolutely do not delete. The sources clearly show lasting interest. This is not just news, it is a story worthy of encyclopedic coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is certainly notable. If there's a question on the article name it should be dealt with on the talk page or if that doesn't work another form of dispute resolution. Deletion is not the answer.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all Doc Strange (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Bad faith nomination by someone who's attempts to rename the article against consensus were reverted twice.Kww (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway per other such cases as Disappearance of Madeleine McCann in which the person is not notable for anything in their life, only their disappearance. There are 96 citations in the article. Easily passes WP:N and does not fail WP:NOT#NEWS due to apparent long term coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let's forget Wikipedia policy for a minute and discuss more important matters. When I consider this case, it is apparent that there is a complete failure in the justice system, and that alone is notable! Her family received no justice in this case, period! This has been my focus in creating and editing some pages - failures in societal systems set up to supposedly protect people. To cite a discussion of the lack of pages for Elizabeth Smart or Charles Lindbergh Jr. above is pure nonsense as, someone else may be working on such pages even now. Holloway's page is in credible order, with references, etc. and even now, as I'm typing this comment, there has been another story concerning her case which I will put on her webpage. My suggestion? Create a Wikipedia category for "Failed Justice" or some such title. That's what we're seeing here and her case is notable in this respect. Unfortunately, I believe that we'll see more such cases in the future.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed for all we know the boys left her and she swam out into the ocean and drowned or was eaten by sharks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway She was an ordinary high school senior, and at the time of her disappearance utterly failed to satisfy WP:BIO. She was no more notable that millions of other teenagers. Her disappearance and the relentless coverage by TV news channels is a striking example and an index case of the Missing white woman syndrome. The disappearance has attracted prolonged and recurring news coverage in multiple reliable sources, apparently because her picture on the front page of a newspaper improves circulation, and her image on TV improves ratings. Edison (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Certainly good points, but the question of a move has twice been thrashed out on the article's talk page and been turned down. Shouldn't that be respected?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This obviously should be kept per WP:SNOW. As to the issue of moving/renaming it appears that's already been discussed and the consensus was to keep it under this title. So I think this should just be closed. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons stated by other contributors. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that this might be a good time for an admin to step in under WP:SNOW and declare this a speedy keep. While WP is not a democracy, opinion seems overwhelming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I saw where a couple of editors on the article's talk page opposed a move to Disappearance of Natalie Holloway. On this AFD I see 5 calling for the move, in keeping with the fact that the disappearance has been widely written about, but the disappeared person was non-notable before she vanished. The"consensus" on the article talk page is not evident. It should be moved. Edison (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no strong opinion on what the name ends up, but I strongly believe this is the wrong forum for that decision. How many of the keep votes would have said keep + keep at this name if this was "Articles for Renaming" and not "Articles for Deletion. How can there be consensus to rename if the question asked was Keep or Delete?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't stand these articles on victims who have been picked up by the tabloids or by tabloid TV. I feel for her. I hope they catch the killer. I can't see any possible reason for a Wikipedia article. There is nothing to be gained from our having an article on this subject. Just because a number of people are interested in a subject is no kind of justification for having an encyclopedia article on the subject. It is not encyclopedic. We are an encyclopedia. We don't have a whole lot of information on the Darfur tribes that are the subject of genocide. We don't have enough information on the lawless lands in Pakistan where Taliban and Al Qaeda allies run rampant. One of these days I'm going to suggest we change the name of Wikipedia to WikiTRIVIA to better reflect the concerns of the trivia-besotted editors that apparently make up a majority around here. We either have too few grownups or two few grownups acting like grownups. Noroton (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with you that Wikipedia is media-driven, with a heavy bias to creating articles out of anything that's "Breaking News" on CNN or Fox, and little about people who happen to be from a non-English speaking nation. And it pisses me off when a person who has accomplished nothing major (yet) writes off another human being as "non-notable". However, one thing that impresses me about Wikipedia is that, unlike CNN or Fox, it does invite contributions from all over the world. Is Natalee Holloway entitled to more attention than any other person who has disappeared without a trace? No, not really. Has she received more attention anyway? Unarguably, yes. Putting it in perspective, for every article like this, Wikipedia can have ten articles about people who go unnoticed on CNN or Fox. Instead of deleting one page out of principle, let's work on keeping so-called "non-notable" persons and topics in the mix. That's what that the jigsaw puzzle piece globe is all about. Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are a metric buttload (3.3 American buttloads) of reliable sources in this article. Sure, maybe the page needs a good NPOV check and copyedit, and maybe a little more biographical information about Natalie herself, but as has been said a million times in the past, AfD is not cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep since the subject is clearly notable per WP:N and WP:BIO. No need to change the article title. Majoreditor (talk) 04:46, 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--Tone 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign consulates in Edinburgh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivial list per the precedent established here. Merry Christmas from Sasha 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the creator of this article I'm not especially bothered whether it stays or not, it was created to remove a lot of the flab on the Edinburgh article. On the toss of a coin, I'd say keep Globaltraveller (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consulates are very encyclopedic topics and are notable. Diplomatic missions in Edinburgh are particularly important as the new Scottish Parliament is located there and it is the government center of Scotland. As for the previous AfD on consulates in different cities, see WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you demonstrate why Edinburgh's list is less trivial than the list for state capitlas like Boston or provincial capitals like Quebec City, both of which were deleted in the Oklahoma City AFD.
I think that gigantic batch AfD was closed incorrectly (it looked like a "no consensus" actually) and some of the city listings, like Boston for example, should have been kept. --Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consulates are not embassies; they deal with commercial matters and the welfare of their citizens. Accordingly the existcne of the Scottish Parliament is totally irrelevant: Scotland is a nation, but not a sovereign nation. Its foreign affairs are dealt with by the UK government, despite what the present Scottish executive would wish. This is why there are no embasisies in Edinburgh, or in Oklaholma. Consulates are all not particularly notable. A list like this is a mere directory; it does not link to articles on indiviual consulates, articles that might not exist, which is the primary reason for having lists. The Oklahoma precedent indicates deletion. If Oakshade is unhappy with the precedent, he shoudl request a deletion review, not try have it reviewed here. His unfamiliarity with the subject of Edinburgh is probably indicated by his choice of the speeling "center" not "centre". Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage of "center" was not as a proper noun, ie, Edinburgh International Conference Centre. If a British person wrote "The United Nations is a diplomatic centre of New York," I wouldn't be all immature and accuse that person of knowing nothing about New York because of their own cultural spelling of the word "center." You're not helping your argument by frivolous, not to mention incorrect, attacks on editors who disagree with you. One improperly closed AfD does not set a precedent. Wikipedia doesn't even do precedents; See the talk history of WP:OUTCOMES which used to be called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents but now redirects to the former as Wikipedia doesn't do precedents, not to mention doesn't do WP:ALLORNOTHING --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a list of addresses and names, thats a telephone book to me. Mbisanz (talk) 08:16, 28 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 Rigadoun (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson)[edit]

How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleting duplicate of How I Feel (Kelly Clarkson song) Bull Borgnine (talk) 05:10, 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 This article has no reliable sources, and I could find none after a quick search. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. GlassCobra 08:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbook[edit]

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

This page has been tagged for notability for over a month with no significant improvements in that department. The sources provided are not third-party and thus not reliable per policy A search on Google finds no reliable sources - mainly unofficial strategy guides, various blog posts from people who play the game, and a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff after the first page or so. Most of the article is a rephrasing of the in-game FAQ, and therefore a bunch of statistics about various in-game elements. The last two sections contain entirely unsourceable trivia and /or complete speculation by whoever wrote it. I recommend that this article be deleted in accordance with the above linked policies.

Disclaimer and other notes: I am an active player of this game. I believe that I have also tagged one of the previous incarnations of this article for CSD. This page has been deleted twice previously under CSD A7. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Facebook has thousands of applications, and I'm sure some of them have more users using them. So I'd say it isn't notable. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Facebook apps are a valid subject if they are popular. Warbook is quite popular. I think the article needs some work, but you guys are being too trigger happy. Brokenfrog (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To some extent I agree that you're being trigger happy because the call for delete was started by only a select group of individuals. Facebook has thousands of applications, most of which are not very notable. What is one more RSS feed, Blogger, or Picture App going to do? That's what most applications are, however you fail to acknowledge the unique traits that this application provides that others do not. This is a game designed from the ground up. If you question Warbook's impact on society, then I have to question Camarilla (fan club) or DEFCON (computer game) because although equally ambitious neither of them have as large an player-base/impact as Warbook. This does not mean I approve of the state the article is in because it SHOULD BE CLEANED UP regardless of the final decision. Cadwal (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally believe it's important enough to have a section on Facebook, though I do not believe that the length it currently has is appropriate. How about merge it with another article and shorten it to include only encyclopedic information (ie: History and a little bit about the game itself)? 65.3.198.134 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the point in merging it. Improvements can be made, but no need to delete what is there. —Pengo 00:43, 25 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 Hainan Island incident. Merge necessary info at your pleasure. Kurykh 05:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Wei (pilot)[edit]

Wang Wei (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only significance hinges on his name rhyming with "Wrong Way". All other information are part of Hainan Island incident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Hainan Island incident, which already seems to give significant coverage to the topic. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per NickPenguin. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as nominator--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the incident. The significance was great to the Chinese, who created approximately 1 bajillion online memorials to the guy, but I don't think there's real notability here. He is, however, a valid search term. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. I do not like the "Wrong Way" allusion by the nominator as it reeks of bias. He was a hero in his country and here we are making fun of his name. As a sign of good faith the merge would be more appropriate until Chinese wikipedians can expand it.--Lenticel (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hero? We are not even sure who crashes into who, so calling him a hero is biased and POV pushing. His only significance is the name rhyming which is an interesting twist considering the circumstances of his death. We are not making fun of his name, other than stating the fact that he got nominated for a Darwin Award for his name (a section certain Chinese wikipedians insist on deleting with no credible arguments) Other than that, he is not notable enough to deserve his own article. Chinese wikipedian? You want them to create a POV article, don't you?--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't want to pick up a fight with anyone but you're accusing me of encouraging other people to create a POV article. The darwin award that you mentioned as an assertion of notability is certainly a Western POV and according to that topic's article is created to make fun of people. A POV article would be an article on the pilot under the Western prospective. I was only stating that the Chinese side be mentioned as well to balance out the bias and as a sign of good faith that they should have claims here as well. But since RS are unavailable at this time, I was recommending a merge. Then out of the blue you accuse me of POV pushing because I don't like the person seen only in the West's perspective. Remember the en.wikipedia is not for people where the English language came from but for those who understand the English language.--Lenticel (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to forget that we are all here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. The problem here is not that Chinese POV is not represented, but that Chinese Wikipedians, due to nationalist feelings, refused to include your so-called Western POV in this article. Obviously, nationalism has no place in wikipedia. I digged up some quality references last year to represent Western POV to balance out the Chinese POV and eventually gave up. (there's a long discussion in the talkpage with vastly divided opinions, note that all favored of deleting the Wrong Way section are self-proclaimed Chinese) A Chinese admin again deleted the section last week and refused to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not looking for a fight, but without NPOV, this article has no merit, not to mention all other info. other than the wrong way section is already mentioned in Hainan Island incident.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, you just accused me of not understanding Wikipedia but I'll let that pass since you're willing to end this conflict. I will now give you advice under the condition that you will not accuse me of anything anymore. On me: I know that you have a conflict with Chinese wikipedians and I understand that it is stressful but that doesn't mean that you can accuse uninvolved people as Chinese POV pushers. On Chinese POV: You should have given the whole story in your first post rather than now so other editors will understand the problem. Anyway, deletion will not make NPOV go away. Chances are the NPOV will creep back on the main article and an international incident like that can't be easily nom'ed. This also gives the wrong signal to those you have conflict with (ex. You won't agree with me? Let's see about that!) and would result in more conflicts and more stress. You're right, nationalist views of any country have no place in Wikipedia but consensus has. I strongly suggest that you go on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If that fails, there is still the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I know it will be long but it sends the message that you're willing to talk with them and not go to low tactics such as edit wars. --Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The main reason is the article's notability issue. Sure, the Wrong Way section pisses me off a whole lot and it is obvious that many members of WikiProject:China hold grudges against me, but these issues have nothing to do with this Afd and are not the reasons I nominated this article for deletion. The Wrong Way section obviously wouldn't make the main article since the article isn't about the pilot but the entire incident, so this won't be an issue on the main article. One of the reasons I nominated this Afd other than notability is to avoid edit warring and escalation of this conflict. As for dispute resolutions, I have no ongoing dispute with those wikipedians other than the notability issue of this article. I have no interest in any lengthy litigation since my time on 'pedia is limited. I do appreciate your effort to communicate.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect looks like the best solution.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:10, 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 all. Singularity 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual Wake[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable. Created by an actor in siad movie. Also nominating the creator's autobiographical article,

Sam Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Carados (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added as well. — BillC talk 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad Boss as well. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, no assertion of notability. I have added Bad Boss to this list as well, by the same director and editor. Comments made before this have obviously not yet considered Bad Boss unless stated. — BillC talk 23:10, 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. Singularity 06:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intex[edit]

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

Prod contested by myself. I created this article from WP:AFC; my version was [19]. A subsequent editor changed it to the disambig page it is now. I'm not sure whether the Intex company in my version is notable; please decide on that before you approve deletion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as the editor who posted the prod). I don't think the Intex Solutions company meets notability requirements; the best independent source I could find was this[20], and I don't think that exactly counts as serious coverage. It looks like they fail WP:ORG to me, and needless to say, so do the other companies listed on this disambiguation page. Terraxos (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this - delete for these reasons.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per every disambiguated link mentioned in the article in question being invalid (no page exists for any). As mentioned above, the original article's content of a company doesn't suffice notability requirements, thus coupled with the lack of valid articles mentioned on the page, it should be deleted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:38, 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. Singularity 05:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Cosmic Chaos[edit]

Kirby Cosmic Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. NN game. Not out yet. Fan made. Seems to be made by creators of game. Carados (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fan games are NOT notable. Fangz of Blood 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Fan games could be notable (anything is possible) but this one is not. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:34, 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 speedy delete, author's request. (Note that this page was created by a different user.) Pegasus «C¦T» 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas MacArthur High School (San Antonio, Texas)\temporary[edit]

Douglas MacArthur High School (San Antonio, Texas)\temporary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It has served its purpose as a temporary article while the main article was protected. Midnight Q (talk) 03:48, 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. Singularity 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David McDonald, director of Woodstock Can't Get There From Here[edit]

David McDonald, director of Woodstock Can't Get There From Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable director. He isn't at imdb, the article itself is actually about the movies, and basically nothing about him. A google search for '"The Culture Wars" "david mcdonald"' comes up with 16 hits. A google search for '"Woodstock Can't Get There From Here" "david mcdonald"' comes up with 20 hits. Corvus cornixtalk 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (and have you ever seen a more malformed article title?) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC) (takes that back, once deleted an article whose title was the URL to somebody's blog or something) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl6eRMzf9lo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzbone (talk • contribs) 04:51, 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. Singularity 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mind over mountain[edit]

Mind over mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable race, no reliable sources, PROD removed. Corvus cornixtalk 03:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, lack of sources Mr Senseless (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Race has been run for nine years, which is pretty good for events like this. 550 participants last run is also fairly large. Googling shows it linked from several biking clubs. Mykej (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Its notability doesn't come from how long it has run, or whether five hundred contestants is significant; I've been in local Boy Scout rallies that numbered that many. It comes from reliable sources. Are there any testifying to the notability of this race? Only 103 Google hits [21], none from any media source.  RGTraynor  22:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with 21k hits. [22] If you get over 500 people to go to backcountry BC, it's pretty notable. Mykej (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should have followed your hits to the end instead of just looking at the first page. Your search actually returns 187 hits [23].  RGTraynor  03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was leaning towards delete due to the fact that no one has yet put forward an argument that counts for anything, but the press do seem to have taken note of the race, as shown by the number of hits on the Google News archive, here. Google News is more useful as a search for reliable sources- not everything on it is reliable, and not everything reliable is on it, but these stories seem to imply enough notability for this article to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Errr ... did you actually look at any of those links? Several of them were written before this race was instituted, several are about mountain climbing, and all the links that reference this actual race come from a couple of websites. Are there any reliable sources, from actual press?  RGTraynor  04:15, 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.   jj137 ♠ 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lucero Less[edit]

Kevin Lucero Less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested CSD, speedy tagged for notability. Keilana 03:11, 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 speedily deleted (and salted) under A7 by User:Anonymous Dissident. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal (Metal Band)[edit]

Arsenal (Metal Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Essentially a long vanity piece for an unsigned metal band that has no releases as of yet. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC abysmally as well as WP:V: their only "source" is a Myspace profile. Mr Senseless (talk) 03:06, 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. Singularity 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furmanism[edit]

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

Non-notable new religion. Possibly WP:MADEUP. Few ghits, relevant or otherwise. Delete Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; probably hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; probable hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete When Google only gets 168 hits (total, relevant hits are probably less than 10, I didn't bother to count), it's almost certainly nonsense. Of the first 10 hits, it appears only one refers to this as a faith (and jokingly at that), at least one is a WP mirror, and the rest seem to use the term in a manner analogous to a spoonerism. Hoax. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group is real, includes some well-known individuals, since when does Google-hits determine whether something is real knowledge or not? JohnKenter, 06:15, 19 December, 2007
    • We're not arguing about whether it is real, that is just irrelevent. My foot's real- where's the article on that? We are arguing about whether it is notable- do you have any reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am new to this whole process, so be patient with me. John Kenter's claim is correct--most scientists of religion estimate somewhere around 1 million followers outside China, most in Europe, with perhaps another 200,000 inside China. If these figures are within the range of being correct that makes this 'religion' or belief system far larger than Scientology, Deism, New Ageism, or numerous other 'isms which are included in your encyclopedia. Is size your litmus test for inclusion? If so, this topic clearly qualifies. Thank you for your time. Alan C. Chambers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.804.72.6 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If more than a million people believed in it, it would turn up more google hits - and that is a fact. Either a hoax or a partial hoax, making greatly exaggerated claims. Please delete as there are no reliable sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it reads like an essay and rambles on without directly addressing the topic at hand in a logical, encyclopedic way. It doesn't start off by explaining what the subject is - it starts off on something which is not directly about 'furmanism' at all.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. Smells extremely fishy. --Russ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* per reasons above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Hoax article. There is ONE hit, just one, on Google UK (this for a religion allegedly strong in Europe) for "Davis Furman" + "Furmanism," and that's a 17-hour-old mirror of this article. Of the references in the article, the so-called "Journal of European Religious Statistics" does not exist. Neither do any of the articles referenced; the only extant hits on Google UK on any of them come from the aforementioned mirror. The Knippenberg book does exist, but "Furmanism" isn't referenced in it at all, let along on the pages given. By the bye, exactly how likely is it for a religion allegedly founded in the 1920s to have the same two founders still be at the helm in 2002? There, that's ten minutes of my life I will never get back.  RGTraynor  22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHENANIGANS. Creator is probably having more fun making us run around disconfirming sources than he had writing the article in the first place. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I speedied the creators' article through lack of notability. This is obviously a mess around, and even if it isn't, it's clearly WP:NN. ScarianTalk 12:49, 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. Singularity 05:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisla sharks[edit]

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

Strongly delete - I can't even guess about what this article is . It looks like a Wisła Kraków squad , but there is also some players names who don't play there....Bartekos (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD was incomplete. It is listed now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (A1) Based on the position abbreviations, I have to assume this is a soccer team, however no information is given at all other than the roster. As the page has been abandoned by it's creator for almost two weeks, I don't see any hope in this getting resolved. Google gets zilch, other than the fact that they do exist and are from Poland. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Wisła Sharks are a football hooligan "firm" from Krakόw. I presume the names in the article who are not players are members of this group. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil Bridger. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The only "Wisla Sharks" appear to be football hooligans.--Michig (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save as a teenagar's dream team in all-Polish playoffs in soccer. Much better performance than the many phony articles about false Solidarność' martyrs created lately in Polish Wikipedia just like this one. greg park avenue (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • a teenagar's dream team in all-Polish playoffs in soccer - huh??!?!? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a harmless joke made by a school boy from Poland. What I am really concerned about is a series of phony articles in Polish Wikipedia produced recently by one-purpose sockpuppets about the Solidarity movement during martial law without any substantial references, and I suspect that the current Polish president awards the medals supporting his choice on the misleading information inserted in Polish Wikipedia only (it'd be a major abuse of Wikipedia), see this one regarding Tadeusz Świerczewski, and there are many more, such articles. What I have just discovered by a coincidence seems to be to me just like scratching the top of an iceberg. Here's not a place to supply the correct links, but if you or someone were interested, contact me on my talk page. greg park avenue (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is not the place to talk about stuff on the Polish Wikipedia. – PeeJay 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not? It's Poland's related section and 10% of Wikipedia articles are written in Polish, many of which are translated in to English, and many of these are pure hoax - a major source of disinformation flow cleverly created by sophistically trained specialists from former SB (Polish equivalent of KGB). It's about time someone starts to talk about it. greg park avenue (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see why not? I'll tell you why. It's because it's not our responsibility to deal with the Polish Wikipedia. Take it up with the admins there, or deal with it yourself. – PeeJay 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do it myself? I am much to old to keep fort alone against all army. Even much younger than me, my favorite Polish editor User:Halibutt, walked away like a movie star. Smile. greg park avenue (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable hooligan firm. – PeeJay 22:07, 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. GlassCobra 08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gomes[edit]

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

Borderline notable artist. Keilana 02:26, 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. Singularity 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters[edit]

Family Guy Recurring Gags and Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be entirely original research, also unsourced VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as original research, unsourced, and most likely unverifiable. Oh yeah, and fancruft too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete enough to give a person a recurring gag. Example: "Stewie always has an evil plan and wants to kill Lois." Witty commentary: "What an ungrateful kid , the lady gave birth to him and he wants to kill her." Another example: "Peter always gets people to do stupid stuff or does stupid stuff himself." I've noticed that pattern too. Mandsford (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idem (what they said) Pearrari (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How am I supposed to post a source for scenes and characters ? Good luck trying to find that source !OK , I already put that information on the Family Guy page . It got deleted there too . It's official , Wikipedia is dead . It's no longer a place to post useful information . This is another way that democracy , freedom of speech and liberty are dead too . Oh , Family Guy made an episode about that , PTV ! Goodbye , Democracy  ! Liberty is Dead . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilgunner94 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Original research, redundant information etc, basically everything thats been said. Milonica (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced original research. Lilgunner, there are thousands of websites out there which can be used to post this kind of information. (Useful? In what sense?) Wikipedia is not one of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal feelings aside. We don't need a separate article for all this. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unencyclopedic and trivia to boot. Maybe (as in probably not) include a few (i.e., one or two) examples of the more frequent gags in the main Family Guy article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as above, the same information is now on the main page. --Arcanios (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This is very good for a fan site. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I think it's good information for a Family Guy fan, it doesn't seem like something an encyclopedia like Wikipedia would need. Maybe some of them could be added to the Family Guy page here at Wikipedia or at a Family Guy fan site? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT to quote just two key policies that this falls foul of.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely unecyclopedic fancruft. I love this show, but I don't think a WP article needs to be here just to tell us Chris has a monkey in his closet. Merry Christmas from Sasha 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a notable show that is in part notable because of its recurring gags and characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:36, 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 keep. Singularity 05:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullion Committee[edit]

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

This article doesn't have any sources, isn't neutral, has an elementary tone to it, and isn't very notable. I can't find any reason why this article should stay. Tavix (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable, though the article is woefully inadequate. JJL (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep per [24] ShivaeVolved 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article you referenced though just gives information about Sir Peel, not the Bullion Committee. The only mention was that he joined it in 1819. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the same site: [25]. JJL (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sir Robert Peel as this article lacks sufficient notability & depth to have a separate page. Mh29255 (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though it's not about the big Oxo sign. Mykej (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJL; this is a really bad stub, but bad writing is a reason to fix the article, not to delete it. --Russ (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Yes, the article is rudimentary. the solution is to improve it. DGG (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope some one will expand. The return to the bullion standard ofter the Napoleonic War was an important evetn in British monetary history and certainly ought to have an article. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the present content, but if properly expanded this article should cettainly remain. Accordingly the stub should be retained. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 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 Keep. GlassCobra 08:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Acres[edit]

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

Contested prod. No context. No WP:RS. I wikified it, which included a link to Red Hook. Another editor assumed one of the NY locations listed on that disamb page is the correct location. however, there is no real indication where on Earth this place is. Unless the original author (or someone who knows for sure) can clarify, the article is worthless. Evb-wiki (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a stubby little stub, but it is a real place with the correct links, as mapquest shows [26]. RMHED (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on these clarifications and the mapquest evidence, I withdraw the nomination. Keep. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So now you are contradicting yourself? Tavix (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's what "I withdraw the nomination" generally means. Interestingly, withdrawals are not discussed anyplace I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it is real place, it isn't notable at all. The article doesn't even have Demographics like most place articles. Quoting from hamlet (place): "Outside of the Adirondack Park, hamlets (in New York) are usually not legal entities and have no local government or official boundaries." Based on this, I say delete. Tavix (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because it has no official standing doesn't mean that it's not notable as its own community, which L.A. appears to be from the Mapquest evidence. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seem to be two parts of Red Hook that are special because they have a separate water supply, but that's the only thing notable about them. They're just neighborhoods aka developments. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the one who removed the prod template. The reason was not that I contested the deletion of the article per se, simply that the template had been added with the reason "no context". it took me all of 20 seconds of searching in other Wikipedia articles to find and add context, after which the reason given for the prod nomination was no longer valid. In cases like this, I often find that "no context" as a prod rationale is a cop-out for not actually seeing whether an article can be given context and expanded (no offence intended to Evb-wiki). In this specific case, I would lean towards keep if Linden Acres can be shown to be "a small hamlet", as its own article says, but a delete if, as the article for Red Hook, New York says, it is simply "a housing development'. Hopefully someone from that part of the world can confirm things one way or the other. Grutness...wha? 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Just in case some of you don't know: in New York, everywhere that's not a city is in a town — it's not a specific miniature semi-urbanised settlement like, say, Indiana towns would be. It's rather similar to a New England town, like a civil township with more impressive powers. By Mapquest, we can see that it's really there, and that it's a real community (not just a neighborhood, and old enough to be connected with the name of a major road) outside the Red Hook village limits. There's no reason to delete this, especially as Evbwiki has asked to withdraw it despite others' calls for deletions. Let's take it to the New York wikiproject and ask someone to source it and expand it. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mapquest is not at all a reliable source for the significance of a place name. They have place names in their database for subdivisions and the like. If you Mapquest my house, you'll find that it is a quarter-mile from some place called "Belleair, Virginia"; the only problem is, I've lived there for 12 years and I've never heard of this alleged place. --Russ (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In that case, check this GNIS page. You really can't get more authoritative than the GNIS. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there is nothing in policy or guideline guaranteeing notability just out of the hamlet's mere existence, I do note that there are many articles based around neighborhoods, whether or not they possess independent zipcodes or are "census-designated areas." I'm not voting thumbs up or down myself, but I would definitely like to see something more than a mere statement that this place exists.  RGTraynor  20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Red Hook town article. There is a communities section in all New York town articles. This is the standard practice for hamlets which do not yet have sufficient content to warrant a separate article. Once there is enough verifiable content, we can split off the article again. But as of now, it should be redirected. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Frankly, I wish that this weren't done so often, but there is plenty of precedent for such redirection. I still say keep it as a separate article, but doing this wouldn't be unusual. Nyttend (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be useful as a separate article but not in its current state. I'm sure someone will eventually put in information about why that residential subdivision was built, why the location was chosen, etc. But in its current state, it adds nothing new to what is already in the town article. If we can write something substantial, then yes we should separate the article. --Polaron | Talk 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I lived in that area for 25 years, I never heard of it. Doing some digging seems to indicate that it is a real place. The lack of sources in the article is, in my mind, not a reason to delete. So unless there is some proof that this is not a real place, then we need to keep it. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that (1) "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," and (2) "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." See WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this principle apply to anything or only to "places"? Can any person who can be confirmed to exist have an article? If not, why are "places" treated differently? --Polaron | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It applies to everything on Wikipedia. Verfiability is the threshold, but thing (and people) must also be notable to be included. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So is Linden Acres notable? Based on the current state of the article, it does not appear to be. But since places often do have sourcing, it should not be deleted but temporarily redirected until the sourcing is added. --Polaron | Talk 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the keep voters suggest that the current state of the article is sufficient? This is better redirected for now as everything in the article is already in the town article. Until someone adds seomthing substantial that would make the town article too long, then redirect it. Should I write articles for all hamlets that currently redirect to the town that only say "X is a hamlet in town Y"? --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 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 Keep. Apparently it took this AfD for someone to notice that the article was worthwhile and in need of help. Thanks to those who took part in the cleanup. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everyone is learning from my and Dhartung's example. Articles can be fixed by simply doing a bit of research, finding some sources, and editing the article with ordinary editing tools that even editors without accounts have. Bringing articles that haven't been fixed yet to AFD is the wrong thing to do, as stated in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, in our Wikipedia:Editing policy, and in the big box right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. AFD is not cleanup, and one can fix articles onesself. If you see an article that is in need of cleanup, clean it up yourself. Do as Dhartung and I have done. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief sustainability officer[edit]

Chief sustainability officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced original research that basically amounts to wishful thinking. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article's main assertion of notability (that every company's board will have a CSO) is purely speculative and unsourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a very notable/new corporate position. Google search of term gets 15,200 hits. See [27] and [28] for some sources. If the article simply needs a rewrite, don't nominate for AfD. Joshdboz (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uncle G (talk · contribs) just replaced the contents of the entire article. I am not withdrawing my nomination yet, but I wouldn't mind a keep now. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much discussion of this admittedly new corporate posting. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s edits, is now a serviceable stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Joshdboz, the AfD nomination should have never been made, tag it for cleanup or rewrite if you dislike the contents, but not for delete! --Arcanios (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly how it was tagged, at the time of nomination. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to Uncle G and Dhartung for improving the article. JavaTenor (talk) 10:34, 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.   jj137 ♠ 03:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse antisemitism[edit]

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

Unsourced OR with an attempt at prophesying as well. A PROD tag was inserted only minutes after this article was created, but was quickly removed. There was no follow-up on the newpage patrol's part, but no attempt to address the issues of this article either. The author himself seems to have abandoned this article. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Censor We can't let something this explosive get out. Think of the children! - Richfife (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The few google hits I get seem to be spur of the moment inventions of the phrase. I think myself, and most other people, would appreciate some academic attention on overreactive media accusations of antisemitism, before a Wikipedia article is created to push POV. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although something of this sort is observable (watch what happens when you comment on a Wikipedia article with the word "Jewish" in it), this article has zero sources. It's just some goy kvetching, what a schmendrick. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR, POV, unsourced, potential neologism, and the list goes on ... --Paularblaster (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched for sources and there is nothing in the article and not much more elsewhere, that would constitute a reliable source to support the terminology. Alansohn (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rubbish. Nick mallory (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite - the content is fact for all I care, and a bit of research will certainly find sources, though the exact terminology might differ. Maybe my opinion is coloured by the fact that I'm a German and the meme is even stronger over here, where in some circles you can't say anything against modern-day Israel without being labeled a Nazi. --Arcanios (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jewish lobby. Race card also seems relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to race card, then add a line to that article mentioning that the "Jewish lobby" sometimes tries to play it. This phenomenon exists (in the UK particularly against those who support Palestinian "resistance") and there are ghits for the term, but it's clumsy and "race card" sums up the concept better. Needless to say the text of this article is weaselly nonsense and should be killed with fire. Moyabrit (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written original research.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy. Obvious POV essay which is inappropriate in article space. *** Crotalus *** 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfying would be pointless given that the article was created by a single-purpose account that has been inactive for more than four months. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throw to the wolves since we cannot allow the truth to come out. <eleland/talkedits> 19:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. The term seems to be used in academia, examples are [29] and [30] (if you Google, the term appears). It is also used in the Jewish Tribune, Canada’s largest Jewish weekly newspaper (see: [31]). But it needs to be referenced and treated carefully. - Mafia Expert (talk) 20:38, 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. I believe itʻs getting a bit wintry here... Singularity 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2008[edit]

So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is not referenced, no idea if it's just someone's random guess or if it's based in fact. Keilana 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - guesses based on prior behavior of label; hedged about with "probably" and the like. Bad enough we've got all these non-notable future albums pouring in, without guesswork like this! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I've said it before, Wikipedia isn't going to disappear anytime soon, so you can chill out and wait until there's actually some valid info available. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously WP:CRYSTAL. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Speedily Deleted: The Hits of Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball Mr Senseless (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also all of these songs were hits in the Fall of 2007...Now why would they be featured on something like this. I think that this also fails WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX Doc Strange (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - no, apparently this label issues nostalgia albums for the "remember the pop hits we loved last year, when we were mere children of 16" market, a few times a year. The problem is that the creator of the article is guessing what's gonna be on the latest installment, based on what's popular on that label now. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. It doesn't actually meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but we could still snowball delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Snowball. It's almost irrelevent to vote, but this is almost certain to end up a snowball arguement. This is complete crystal-ballery and nothing else. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:05, 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 Speedy keep (withdraw nomination). Obviously notable. Keilana 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flo Rida[edit]

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

New rapper tagged for CSD, he has charted singles though, so he may be notable. (Note:The singles' chart positions are not referenced) Keilana 01:04, 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. Singularity 05:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retsami[edit]

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

Self-published game with no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits are game's own site and lots of forums -- I can't find sources showing notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a new, and not yet notable, board game. Article can be recreated at a later date if it catches on. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability presented in the article, unable to find any in google/yahoo results. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking third-party sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This game is only notable (as far as I can tell) for the raw amount of spam it has created (try a google search). Hobit (talk) 04:36, 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 by WP:SNOW. LOL. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dolan[edit]

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

This looks like a hoax. An English author born in Colonus, Greece in the 15th century seemed suspect to begin with, but I can't find anything on Google with his name added to any of his works. Corvus cornixtalk 00:36, 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.   jj137 ♠ 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sidekicks[edit]

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

One of the indiscrimative lists of loosely related topics, fails WP:NOT#INFO, anyways what indicates a "sidekick", survived a prior AFD because the user didn't give a reason for deletion Delete Secret account 00:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this is clearly an indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics, not to mention that "sidekicks" is original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is non-encyclopedic content—just a list, and it's unreferenced to boot.—Mumia-w-18 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although this could be vaguely construed as a valid topic for an article, it really does seem like something that would either be more appropriate for a category, or just not on Wikipedia at all. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After rereading the previous AfD, I noticed that someone mentioned that there is a Category:Fictional sidekicks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Although this article is a little broader in topic (how many real sidekicks have there been?) I think this is sufficient enough to justify changing my vote to a regular delete. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially interesting, but unencyclopedic nevertheless. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially interesting... but still uninteresting. I got kidesick at the number of times I saw the word "sidekick" to describe each entry. In this case, it's kind of like someone's recurring description of the friend of the person with top billing. I wouldn't be surprised to see "Simon Peter: sidekick to Jesus" Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer. JJL (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a potentially useful list -- and its certainly not "loosely related" to have a similar narrative role in different stories -- but to be usable, it needs to have each entry in the list sourced to someone's analysis that the character is a sidekick. I'm on the fence as to whether it's best to try to clean up the list as it is or wipe the wall without prejudice for recreation one sourced brick at a time. Weak keep —Quasirandom (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The scope of this list does seem to be incredibly broad. First off, it does little to define what it means by "sidekick", a word which can be vague and unclear. In addition, it does not even restrict itself to one form of fiction or media, spreading out into all areas instead. As such, this list has the logical potential to include any character who is in some way an assistant or companion to any fictional hero or protagonist. Even more so, the list does not even draw the line at fiction, extending to history as well, which would mean that this list stands to include any person, real or fictional, who has played the role of an assistant to someone else, which really isn't a list at all. There you have it, there are three points at which this list breaks up into different directions, to the point where it no longer covers one specific, narrow subject. As such, it should be deleted, unless all of these points of divergence could be eliminated, at which point it would be an entirely different list altogether. Calgary (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and the comments from TenPoundHammer and Calgary. Mh29255 (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and the subjectivity of the concept of the 'sidekick'.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsalvageable list cruft--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer. Russ (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No serious prospect of this ever being completed, and a permanently incomplete list is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Moyabrit (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think it would be better to improve the main article rather than maintain this one. --Lenticel (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per organization, notability, and verifiability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain Secret account 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course. Organization: organized alphabetically and contains a contents on top. Notability: sidekicks are frequently used as a major plot device in a variety of media and as a reference guide, we provide such material as a reference. Verifiability: obviously sources exist for the items on this list and so we just need to add sources, rather than destroy the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Organization isn't a reason for keeping anything, and sources exist for everything, that doesn't mean it should have an article Secret account 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:NOT#INFO. Source it all you want, that's not the biggest issue here. You can source just about anything, that doesn't instantly mean it saves the article from deletion. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is unique on the Web and is very useful. --The Cunctator (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, this is a list of loosely associated trivia. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:35, 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 Notability is measured by the presence of multiple independant reliable sources. Neither Alexa nor Google hits are conclusive evidence of notability although they can be useful indications. In this case, the article was nominated on the basis of disputed notability and no-one has established the existance of the required sources. Consensus is measured against policy not headcount. Delete Spartaz Humbug! 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bdsmbooks[edit]

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

The organization is non-notable as a Google News search showed exactly zero results [33]. A regular Google search showed nearly 5,000 results most of which seemed to be user generated and not reliable sources. The article had already been deleted under WP:CSD#G11, but the editor reposted and asked for discussion and more research and I am nominating for AfD in good faith, although this article should probably be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to this too: The Google search showed over 5000 results when I tried, and most were, as you say, just affiliated sites. But they included Alexa (which is independent) ranking it as #2 in the field, and other rankers with similar conclusions. To me this seems (for such a niche market) more like a yes than a no for notability. Steve Rapaport (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I already deleted it once today and it isn't looking any better now. It either needs some proper references and an assertion of notability, or the long walk down the short plank. --John (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete per standards of notability. True, there's no news about it. There's no news about bdsm publishers in general. But Alexa ranks it number 2 in popularity in its field ( http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=227433&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity ), and higher than all six of the publishers mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm#Publishers . So if this one isn't notable, all six of the others in that article should be removed and replaced with Pink Flamingo Press, the only one that's ranked higher by Alexa. Google PageRank tells the same story. Bdsmbooks gets over 5000 hits and PR 3/10, compared with, say, "Silver Moon Books" at 538 hits and PR 1/10. Yet Silver Moon Books has an article that's been restored recently, that looks just like an ad to me.

My feeling is that if any BDSM publishers at all deserve an article, it's the most popular/significant or oldest ones. This one seems to qualify for all three. Steve Rapaport (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to SimpleParadox. Good point, Simple -- I read through your page and the Pokemon argument link. Just because other trash is in there, doesn't mean this should be. Assuming it's trash. But I hope I've got a couple other arguments above that go beyond that. The argument goes like this:
  • BDSM#Publishers shows a few notable publishers, and arguably, since it's a significant article, should do so.
  • All of those publishers have articles of their own, even those that are non-notable by any standards.
  • As part of maintenance of BDSM, it makes sense to occasionally look at those publishers to be sure that they are NOT link spam, and check Alexa and/or Google for whatever publishers in that field are most noteworthy to include on that page instead.
  • In trying to do so, I came across bdsmbooks.com, which is ugly but quite popular in the field, as shown by Google and Alexa. I also checked the other pages mentioned on that article. Most of them are indeed notable, but two are considerably less so than bdsmbooks.
  • My thinking is that the BDSM article could be improved by keeping standards of notable links current. Simply keeping the links that are there, and deleting any new additions, isn't really logical, as per the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There could be any number of reasons why less-notable publishers are historically included. My job is to make the notable ones be there now.Steve Rapaport (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Thank you for your response. I just want to clarify that I have no horse in this race, Steve. I do not have anything personal against BDSM or related articles. I am concerned that the term notable in this case is being thrown around a bit loosely. I appreciate the candor with which you make your argument and I certainly see where you are coming from on this issue, but in my opinion this article does not meet the suggested guidelines for inclusion of web content. Let us wait a bit and see if anyone else is going to chime in on this issue. --SimpleParadox 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: After reading Pentland Hick and doing a little digging, I agree that Merge could be an option here. --SimpleParadox 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per John's suggestion. Tyrenius (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems to be the consensus. I'll accept it and work on it if that's okay. Thanks for your understanding and assistance. Steve Rapaport (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)T[reply]
  • Keep. BDSMBooks should not be merged, as it is a separate entity from the person who created it (and Silver Moon Books is no longer connected with Hicks). BDSMBooks is notable in the BDSM field (if only just, by some standards) and is likely to grow bigger and more notable. --Interesdom (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In that case I would be in favour of deleting it, and recreating it if or when it becomes "bigger and more noable". It seems clear there is not enough to sustain an article at the moment. --John (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are 315 google hits, which doesn't prove notability by any stretch of the imagination. Also, no google news results, and only trivial google books mentions. Addhoc (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable imprint. Mbisanz (talk) 08:17, 28 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. Cool Hand Luke 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChristian[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion 2 months ago, and that discussion closed as no consensus. As shown by the comment to Talk:WikiChristian, and a personal comment to me at User_talk:Andrew_c/archive9#WikiChristian, editors at the time had an interest in DRV (or at least clearly disagreed with the closure). The article has not changed in the 2 months. There are currently one questionable independent source cited in the article. The claim for notability is based on a list of the top wikis generated by Wikimedia. No awards or recognition, no independent media coverage (and therefore it fails WP:WEB). I believe the arguments for deletion at the last discussion are still valid, and I ask the community to examine this issue again (and I ask the closing admin to consider the weight of the arguments instead of simply counting votes). Andrew c [talk] 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The claims of notability of this site come from a Wikimedia-maintained bot. WikiChristian ranks 68th among largest wikis by number of articles, which is quite a feat considering its self-imposed limits on the kind of article it accepts. By total number of views (perhaps the most important criterion), it ranks much higher. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's true that it's one of the top 100 wikis, that's notable enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A statistic does not make an encyclopedia article. How much independent verifiable information is there about the wiki outside of the statistic? Seriously.-Andrew c [talk] 02:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the general standard of notability is being noted; there's no evidence that WikiChristian is being noted. Given the subject, there should be at least one or two articles on it in Christian magazines if it really is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikimedia bot can be considered a reliable source, as it is not influenced by a human bias and updates automatically based on empirical data. Checking manually, they have over 50,000 articles, an extraordinary amount considering the limited scope. Compared to the obviously notable Wikipedias, only 29 languages (out of 253) have over 50,000 articles on all topics; see m:List of Wikipedias. Considering this fact, WikiChristian is 24th of all non-WikiMedia Wikis. The article currently contains sufficient information to be a stub, hence the statistic is not "making the article." Admittedly, a brief Google search (excluding WikiChristian itself, the English Wiki, and Meta) did not find many reliable sources for adding more references, however the influence of the site is clear. An article should not be deleted simply because it is not fated to be larger than a stub or start-class. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do believe the statement cited in the closure of the previous AfD (here, for those who don't feel like clicking) is quite relevant. The nomination centers around the fact that the one non-WikiChristian related source is instead related to the Wikimedia Foundation. While precedent can certainly be set in an AfD discussion, I believe that this is not the proper forum to determine consensus about what is and what is not considered a reliable source - that would best be done at WT:RS. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. AFD is precisely the forum to determine whether an article can exist on the subject because multiple reliable and independent sources have documented it in depth. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, that it is impossible for an article to ever be anything more than a stub is a criterion for deletion. Another criterion for deletion is that there are no independent sources from which to write an article. Note that this article is almost wholly formed from sources published by the subject (and pages on a wiki where there is no fact checking and peer review process and no way to determine the authors' reputations for accuracy, at that), and is essentially autobiography. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the problems with such things. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point out where in the Deletion Policy it is stated that an article doomed to be a stub should be deleted? I've just reviewed the page to double check, and it in fact lists marking the page as a stub as an alternative to deletion. The word "stub" appears nowhere in the "Reasons for Deletion" section, nor does "short" or any other form of the word. The CSD only cover articles with absolutely no content - this page clearly is not speediable, as it is more than a simple definition and does provide some background information about the site, albeit not much. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the simple fact that there are no reliable sources. Seen by a lot of people? So are adverts. Got a lot of pages? So have databases. What do you propose we write without reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, there are no reliable sources, an issue still unresolved from the first AFD months ago. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large enough to keep, and the sources are suitable for the article and sufficiently independent to be objective. (Incidentally,lots of databases have articles in WP, and a few advertisements)DGG (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nobody has yet to get around the argument that this article has no substantial coverage in any sources whatsoever, and presumably plenty of people have looked after two AfDs. All that has been found is a listing in a statistical table which says how big it is, which does not satisfy WP:WEB. --Hut 8.5 17:05, 27 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.   jj137 ♠ 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Fine Day![edit]

One Fine Day! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This student-produced video does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability, receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" . The student paper may be nominally independent, but it is university-funded and does not meet the standard. There is no way of knowing if the News-Gazette story is non-trivial coverage, since there is no web link to the article, but a single source is almost never considered to be sufficient to demonstrate notability, and certainly does not in this case. The fact that these student videos have been posted by the creators on YouTube and DailyMotion does not show any notability at all. Darkspots (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I did as extensive a search at http://www.news-gazette.com/ as I could and could find no evidence of any story being written about "One Fine Day". I found a number of stories written by Melissa Merli in 2007, but not this one. Darkspots (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, and a literal example of something someone made up in school one fine day. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly when the show is aired, as the article states that it will be. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I've already explained at some length at Talk:One Fine Day!#Addressing Concerns, I just don't feel the sum of the local sources, minimal audience thus far, and assertions of future plans indicate this work has achieved reasonable notability. It may in the future rise above the mass of student productions, but we'll know that has happened when it gets substantive, truly independent coverage outside its immediate environs. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Doesn't look notable enough for Wikipedia yet, but there has been some minimal newspaper coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. As of 12/14/2007, the show has received an independent award from the Accolade Competition, a film competition that honors outstanding achievements in film, television, and videography. See http://www.accoladecompetition.org/TV/Honor.aspx for more information. The show is listed under the group Premonition Pictures as OFD! Mental Ability which is the third episode of the show. This has been added to the entry and the main weblink to the site has been added as a reference. For basic information on the competition itself, you can check its IMDB entry at http://imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Accolade_Competition/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkick (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This award in the Accolade Competition was an "honorable mention." I counted 86 winners of the "honorable mention" in 2007 (I only counted once, so that might be plus or minus two winners). This is an award competition that people pay $50 to enter. I get the impression from looking at the website that the honorable mentions are a fairly large subset of the people who enter the competition. We don't seem to have an article about this competition. This is not the kind of "major award" that notability articles indicate is the standard for this sort of situation. Darkspots (talk) 23:17, 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 on account of WP:SNOW --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Weggles and the Funtime Squad[edit]

Dr. Weggles and the Funtime Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a high school band that is non notable. Exactly zero hits on Google [34]. SimpleParadox 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Shows no evidence of meeting WP:BAND. No press coverage. Darkspots (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. J-ſtanContribsUser page 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day, even if it is a musical group. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nick Penguin. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the above, and non-neutral (borderline ad) and non-encyclopedic as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_19&oldid=1116721483"