Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2 December 4 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete as the consensus among discussants. Perhaps, as the single dissenting opinion suggests, at some future date the actor might be sufficiently notable for inclusion here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Baptist[edit]

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

See Talk:Julien Baptist. Looks like a vanity page to me(but I could be wrong). Very doubtful notability as a film actor. No sources given for claims to being a contestant on "Nouvelle Star", no third party sources for claims about acting. "notability" tag was removed twice without comments by anon, but no sources were added. The very model of a minor general 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity piece. Shoessss |  Chat  00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vanity piece. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The movies he played in were notable, but he only played minor roles in them. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Not a Vanity Page for me. I watched "Nouvelle Star" ans He actually was on it. This page might be kind of early for now. But the facts are real even it was in small (not minor)parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.201.151.118 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to Cannabis smoking#Knife Hits. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spots[edit]

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

This is something I might expect to find in the far back pages of High Times magazine, but never an encyclopedia. Beyond being presented as a "how-to guide", it also fails to document any kind of a reliable source for the information. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep LOL…Welcome to 2007. As a product of the 60’s here state-side, I have never heard of the term. However, in a quick search of the subject, I was able to find, under a very specific search criteria; Google 862,000 hits [1].3,010 hits Google Scholar [2] and 1,870 hits Google News, I say keep! Shoessss |  Chat  00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offence Shoessss, but that must be the most useless Google search string I've ever seen. Skipping past the Youtube and Wikipedia mirrors, NONE of the top 20 hits are even close to related to this topic. Did you bother reading what you just cited? I need not remind you that we're an encyclopedia here so I hope you know what would and would not be acceptable as a source. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I read. And yes I take offense! Still vote keep. Here is an even more refined search that may be more to your liking [3]. The question I ask, is why when editors make a nomination to Delete, they feel they must defend it, regardless. Shoessss |  Chat  00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Instead of aimlessly pointing people at largely irrelevant Google searches, how about you cite some actual sources that are acceptable for an encyclopedia? Here is the guideline you should follow: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and let me know if you find any. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because this is a discussion, not a vote. You've been asked to cite sources. You haven't. The article doesn't cite any, either. Your claim that the article is verifiable and contains no original research is thus unsupported. You need to cite sources in order for such a claim to hold water. Articles that are unverifiable original research are deleted. Uncle G 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean upSee below BLACKKITE 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC). Well-known practice, mainly known as "hot-knifing" here. Appears to be a good few refs out there for this name. Oh, and "Toasters are not recommended as this can cause serious injury or death" - well, just LOL. BLACKKITE 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite three such sources. The onus here at AFD is to show that sources actually exist, from which an article can be built. You haven't done so. Uncle G 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] BLACKKITE 07:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent. That's what everyone should be doing at AFD. Now there's something to hang a discussion on.

          All of those sources are articles about Cannabis smoking, which give this method of smoking it a treatment that varies from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph, in amongst a list of other methods. The principles underpinning our concept of notability are that the encyclopaedia should deal with subjects in the same way that the sources do. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things. As such, Wikipedia should discuss this method of smoking cannabis within an article on the various ways of smoking cannabis. And — Lo! — we find that Cannabis smoking#Knife Hits already exists and gives this subject the same level of treatment that the sources do. Moreover, the sources don't support quite a lot of the content of the current article, and all of what they do support is already in either Cannabis smoking or Cannabis (drug) itself. So the sources that you've cited support the conclusion that, stripped of the unverifiable content, this is a duplicate article that should be redirected to Cannabis smoking. Uncle G 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Just to confirm what Uncle G just said, I just wasted a solid ten minutes looking at these links and none of them verified the information in the Spots article. I just want to reaffirm that I still think we ought to delete this article. Coccyx Bloccyx 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're quite right. I hadn't noticed that section in Cannabis smoking. It doesn't have enough individual notability, so I agree; merge anything useful (including some of those sources) to that article and Redirect. BLACKKITE 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cannabis (drug)#Methods of consumption or create article Methods of consuming Cannabis. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the to-do list for WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom due to irreconcilable differences with sources. RFerreira (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- agree 100% with BrewcrewerAudhumlaX (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Kuzmich[edit]

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

This person appears to have no notability outside of the show America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9 and a brief appearance on a morning talk show. In general we don't maintain articles on individual reality TV contestants, and I think the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) at present. —dgiestc 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per norm. Shoessss |  Chat  00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. I came to this article because I was browsing the New York Times and found this article, which certainly speaks to her having significance beyond what she did on the show. The article suggests, for instance, that because of her, Asperger's Syndrome has attained a higher profile. Obviously, the show has given her a platform without which she wouldn't be notable, but that's not the same as being notable only for "one thing". I think that she is significant enough to have an article, even though the current article kind of sucks. Croctotheface 10:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I made this nomination before the NYTimes story went up. If you trim out all the "fan interest" the article could say she's a reality TV contestant who brought media attention to Asperger's Syndrome and hopes to become a spokeswoman. I'm still not convinced that's really notable. —dgiestc 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or, if deleted, integrate a summary of her article into the one on Asperger's Syndrome. She undeniabley provided a vivid story and memorable face for a TV audience of millions, who may otherwise never have heard (or cared) about this unfortunate condition. Why not use this one case to draw attention to Asperger's - for a change, reality TV could do some good. Textor 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a "vivid story" a criteria for notability, and Wikipedia doesn't exist for the social betterment of reality TV. Is she notable outside her appearance on this show? If not, any content belongs in the article America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. —dgiestc 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think you misunderstood my point: I suggested to keep the Heather Kuzmich article because it provides a face and story, in a way that catches public attention, even of those who otherwise couldn't be bothered. The Social betterment of reality TV is not the intention here (impossible anyway), but to use it in order to illustrate the difficulties and challenges, if not discriminations, that suffers of Asperger's face in live. Heather Kuzmich suffered them in public view, that makes her notable. Textor 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but re-write. I think you would have had a better case for deletion before the mainstream media picked up the story. The article just needs to be re-written to meet wikipedia quality standards and include information from secondary media sources, it doesn't need to be deleted. I read about this in the mainstream media and came here to find out more about it. Now that I see that the text of the article simply needs more information, I'll edit. Others will do the same. This is how wikipedia's supposed to work, isn't it? Phuff 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though seconding the rewrite. There have been articles about her in the NY Times, ABC News, and The Chicago Sun-Times. That's significantly more coverage than the average reality TV contestant gets and I think it's enough to qualify her as "notable". I suppose it could be argued that her notability is temporary, but since that remains to be seen I think it would be premature to delete the article. Eatcacti 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Anyone notable enough to get a whole NYT article dedicated to them should have an article in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure you mean Speedy keep? That means something other than just "definitely". —dgiestc 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I mean, "close it now." Also, I don't appreciate your insult to my name in your edit summary. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What insult? I'm sorry if there was a typo but no offense was meant. —dgiestc 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, looking at it, that is bad. Sorry again. —dgiestc —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No hard feelings, people often have errors on my name. Sorry I attributed your error to malice. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your support for keeping the article, but I don't think I like the "if you have a whole NYT article" standard. It's certainly possible for the NYT to have a fluff piece on someone who is not significant enough for an enyclopedia, or an article on a person in connection with some news item that lacks permanent significance. Croctotheface (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll downgrade my support to "keep". --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per NYT profile; nontrivial coverage in reliable source independent of the subject. No brainer. Skomorokh incite 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable model with substantial international press coverage --Ryan Delaney talk 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per detailed coverage above. Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This lady's notability extends beyond the show itself; she has become a spokesperson for individuals with Asperger's syndrome and has received considerable media coverage for it (moreso than a random reality TV participant).--NeantHumain (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: She now has at least four more creditable citable sources to make her notable anough for a wiki article, The New York Times, The Seattle Post, The Chicago-Sun Times, and ABC News. Obviously she's notable enough.AngielaJ 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the contestants on Top Model more or less get interviews with the national papers. That doesn't mean all of them are notable. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes it does. Skomorokh incite 12:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then go write up articles on all of them and cite that. I dare you. See how many of them are kept. REALLY. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike H., meet Hume's law, Skomorokh incite 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: She is far more notable than many who have articles here. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Asperger Syndrome gives her more notability and press coverage than typical reality contestants. Dark clear obsession (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I believe that she is much more notable than other models who have articles to therselves...say cassandra whitehead (who's only achievement in my view was quitting the show) or samantha francis (come on??? samantha francis????) i think you should definetly keep her...no way of deleting her because she IS notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superrodris89 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepbased on MSM coverage. I came upon the New York Times article and I immediately guessed: "I'll bet there's a Wikipedia article about this person and I'll bet some people are trying to delete it." These days I could practically write a bot that voted "keep" on everything and it wouldn't be far off. I express no opinion about whether articles on all other America's Top Model contestants would be appropriate. JamesMLane t c 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because heather is the most popular of this season and she will get more modeling jobs.User_talk:Mojojojo69 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Adding to what others have said, Heather not only has provided notable media attention to her disabilities, but will probably stand as one of the most popular models the show has ever seen. At the very least, she should be included as a reference for Asperger's. -msphina 12.06.07 3:06 pm EST
  • Strong Keep Heather Kuzmich needs her own reference here on Wikipedia. Yes, she is a person with an Asperger's Disorder (can be placed on the autism spectrum) that also participated in a reality-based TV show, yet that in itself is notable. In the autism world this is not “suppose” to happen, since the disorder negatively affects communication and social interaction. There are only a handful of well-known individuals with an autism disorder, and they usually distinguish themselves in science or math. While there have been plenty of movies with an autistic theme, there is no other person with this disorder exposed to the public from an entertainment perspective. Finally and most importantly, she is a person that other people will want to know about, look up and share with others. The disorder creates very bleak expectations, so any contradiction so the so-called standard is noteworthy accomplishment and Heather Kuzmich fit that bill. (First time poster, if someone see this post in the wrong area please correct it-thanks) Roe240 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NYT article, television appearances. Darkspots (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has been featured on many articles and she has received arguably more press attention than any other model in antm history. there is little reason to delete, and a lot to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkider (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivko (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I have added a citation to the Table of Contents of the People magazine in which the article noted at the end of the article appears. It would be best for someone with access to the article to both flesh out the use of the citation as well as the citation itself, but it is present now to support verification of the reliable source. Person does meet minimum notability requirements for inclusion at this time. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Hansberry[edit]

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

This article is clearly a hoax and should be promptly deleted. The text is taken from the article on Aldous Huxley. Many of the words have been simply changed to create a fake article. Leeannedy 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easyworld[edit]

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

Article about an indie band that - and I know you'll have trouble believing this - has no sources other than the band's own website. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC with two albums on Jive Records. They also seem to have charted several times on the British charts; the chart positions also seem legit, per this site (so they meet criterion #2 as well). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really wish people would do some slight research and check things before nominating bands. Way to many bands get deleted speedily because people don't check. At least this one made it to AFD. 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
  • No nobility, in fact the only hits were Wikipedia. Regarding Jive Records I saw the referrnce, but sorry to say not the band listed when I checked. Shoessss |  Chat  00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per conviencening evidence. Shoessss |  Chat  01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of curious how you found totally different serach results then everyone else. 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Guess you kind of missed my vote change? Note time and date. Shoessss |  Chat  03:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Maher[edit]

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

Marshall Maher does not meeting the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. He was once an editor for the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin. Several references can be found to his work online but they are almost exclusively authored by him. References to a Jenna Bush scandal in the article are not significant enough for notability. At best, a reference to Marshall Maher could be made in a section on media coverage of the Jenna Bush alcohol problems within the appropriate article. Leeannedy 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Deleted by User:Mailer diablo. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hunter Football[edit]

Ken Hunter Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject per the sports section of WP:BIO. • Freechild'sup? 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teaser and link[edit]

Teaser and link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable whatever it is. An idiosyncratic phrase of a particular industry, perhaps, but no assertion as to its use. Could be partly included in wiktionary in the definition of teaser or abstract or something else. AvruchTalk 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete (deleted by Golbez.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

En328tv[edit]

En328tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this item notable enough to be worth a major re-write on the article ? thisisace 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably not. Delete as non-notable hardware, I couldn't find any sources to verify info. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as apparent how-to, or (maybe) transfer to WikiBooks. --Thinboy00 @981, i.e. 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to buying obscure consumer electronics. Googling the name gives me lots of places where I can buy one, but little or no third party information about why I should like to buy one. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very little verifiable sources for this. Capitalistroadster 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOURCES.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, information on article merged to Barbara Reskin. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reskin Theory[edit]

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

Speedy tagged as advert. I declined because I cannot assess subject's notability. It may just need a rewrite. Subject's works are the main source for the article Don't know which way to go with this, so AfD. Looks like ad or OR. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but article may be salvagable - redirection noted. Michaelbusch 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creator has been attempting a rewrite. I have requested verifiable sources. Dlohcierekim 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. ALSO, THERE IS ALREADY AN ARTICLE ON THE United Federation of Planets, this is simply a repetition with slight variations of the version from the Star Fleet Universe of games. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But sadly, their lack of improvement is a further nail in the coffin concerning their notability. Judgesurreal777 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is quick, I give you that, but disruptive? When the article in question has no notability, and asserted none? I'm sorry if Wikipedia notability and verifiability policies are burdensome, but the article still needs to improve and hasn't. Judgesurreal777 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Colonel Warden. In addition, while the this Federation and the 'mainline' Federation have similar roots, there is a significant difference warrenting more than just a mention on the other page. --Donovan Ravenhull 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I was getting the debates ready for these Star Fleet articles, another user complained that HE WAS ABOUT TO DO THE SAME THING! So the articles are clearly so not notable people are dying to get ride of them. If you can show that they meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, then great add some references, if not, don't argue policy, this is not a policy forum. Judgesurreal777 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to nominate them not because I wanted them deleted, but because I knew that you were going to do it anyway, and I preferred a bundled nomination over five separate but closely related nominations. So, yes, I was going to nominate them, but not for the reason you're stating. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using exageration to make a point; in less than a month, people try to delete them because they have no hope of improvement, and there has been no improvement. It still illustrates my point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOEFFORT. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is working on it not because they are disinterested or people are busy, but most likely because there is nothing to add. The critical pieces of notability that this article would need dont exist. Hey, it happens, they had to de-feature Wario because all they know about how he was developed is his name in Japanese! And unless we have things like, say, World of Final Fantasy VIII, then there's no reason to keep the article. Take a look at this article, and see how good it is, and the type of information it has. That is what is needsd, and what is currently lacking. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per ColonelWarden. Needing improvement is not the same thing as needing deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there is no deadline for improvement. The AfD process shouldn't be used to try to force improvement of articles in a timely manner. And yes, multiple deletion nominations are a disruption. Rray (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rray. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that over 90%, probably 95% of my nominations have been deleted, so it seems that my record disagrees with you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not really the same thing as those other articles, and Speedy Keep because it has only been about a month since the last nomination, also, per ColonelWarden, needing cleanup is not the same as needing deletion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup is needed for articles that have hope of sourcing at some point, and there has been no demonstration either at the article or in these AFD's that such sourcing exists. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with RFerreira) You haven't even given it a chance for improvement, as the last nom was only one month ago. Generally, you let it sit for some time (preferably more than one month) and see what happens, then nominate it for deletion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would withdraw if you could produce some evidence, or at least strongly assure me that references will be found at some point. As of now, it doesn't seem likelyJudgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question: why didn't you give the article the time considered to be "polite" (for lack of a better word) and instead nominating it after one month? In addition, references abound at those games' websites. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice it had had a previous deletion till I nominated it, and then I didn't know it was nominated only a month ago. That doesn't mean the article doesn't suck and shouldn't improve. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ColonelWarden, content issues need not be hashed out on the deletion channel. RFerreira (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no notability, there is no article once you eliminate the unverifiable content, which would then be everything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, implemented as redirect to Bajoran to allow for a history merge if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardassian Occupation[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete article mostly covered in Cardassian. --Pmedema 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, and reads like a story. Redrocketboy 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - unnotable in real-world, in universe plot summary only. Ejfetters 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Merge if this absolutely must not result in keeping the article). See Disavian's argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (Star Trek): the Cardassian Occupation is a major backstory element in Deep Space Nine. Also note that the one-paragraph summary of Deep Space Nine in the Star Trek article links to this article: see Star Trek#Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999). • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, no real-world notability exists, see WP:NOT and WP:FICT Ejfetters 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More importantly than that, see Wikipedia:No original research. I cannot find any sources at all that actually document and discuss this element of the stories. Certainly, neither you nor the article have cited any. Any analysis of the subject would thus be original research, constructed directly in Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors, which is forbidden. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. If the rest of the world has not published analyses of this subject, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. The rest of the world has to properly document a subject, via a process of fact checking and peer review, first. Uncle G 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are several Trek character articles that have real-world notability that is not original research in them, just look around, they are also source where they were taken from - casting info, cultural impact, etc. Ejfetters 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... none of which is relevant to the discussion of this article. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable, third-party sources are on the page. AnteaterZot 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Uncle G stated himself that no real-world information can be found. Better to merge to Bajoran and/or Cardassian, keeping a redirect here. Ejfetters (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 02:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (Star Trek)[edit]

World War III (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep similar to my comment in the also ongoing nomination of Eugenics Wars, this is an important backstory event, and should be covered somewhere on WP. It'd be nice to have a well-referenced section of Star Trek that deals with overarching plot, backstory, and themes without totally dominating that article with cruft. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely, if this concept was so important, then it should be no trouble to find reliable, third-party sources that talk about it. Because right now, no such sources are on the page. AnteaterZot 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is as much your responsibility to look for sources as it is everyone else's. "The article cites no sources but I didn't bother to see whether any sources actually exist." doesn't hold much water as an argument. "The article cites no sources, and although I've done X, Y, and Z, I can find no sources myself." would. Uncle G 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and the fact is, I haven't found anything! It seems, as I suspected it was, lacking in notability. Perhaps there are Star Trek fans among us that can direct us to interviews where it is mentioned, or articles discussing it, but I have seen none of that, and that's what needs to be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of verbage has been drawn from something that was mentioned in a few lines of dialogue in a few episodes. Mandsford 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is true of things other than Star Trek. The question here is not whether that has happened, but whether that has happened outside of Wikipedia, by people sitting down and publishing analyses of this particular aspect of Star Trek, in books, magazines, journal articles, and the like. You have not addressed this. Uncle G 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can address it enough for both of us. Regardless, Star Trek didn't invent the concept of "World War III". Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cardassia[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics Wars[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Eugenics Wars are an underlying thematic/moral basis for the entire series. So as far as in-universe articles go, this is more important than most. It probably just needs to be cleaned up and sourced. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely, if this concept was so important, then it should be no trouble to find reliable, third-party sources that talk about it. Because right now, no such sources are on the page. AnteaterZot 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's discussed in Michael, Okuda (April 1993). Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future (Paperback ed.). New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0671796119. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) on pages 16, 49, 156-158. Does that count? I don't own The Star Trek Encyclopedia, sadly. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but there's also a book devoted to this, The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep other fiction is based off of the Star Trek concept, as inspiration. 132.205.99.122 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that? Where are your references? Judgesurreal777 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what we're getting at here is that the article violates core principles of Wikipedia; no original research, and verifiable and reliable third party sources. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. AnteaterZot 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is NOT a thematic/moral basis for the entire series. As a matter of fact, Star Trek: Voyager was seen a contradiction to the whole idea. In one of those "go back in time to the present" shows that were a staple of the Star Trek franchise, a 1996 episode of Voyager had the crew visiting a rather pleasant version of 1996. There's a lot of conjecture here from a brief mention in the episode "Space Seed" Mandsford 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be sarcastic, but you may have heard of The Wrath of Khan? Also, in TNG, Picard likes to pontificate on the lessons learned from the Eugenics Wars. Etc, etc. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. You're assuming that there was a lot of mention of the "Eugenics Wars" in the Wrath of Khan, when it was, at best, a line or two of dialogue. The backstory to "Wrath" was the marooning of Khan and his followers on a barren planet. Anyway, it's certainly not a theme of the series. Mandsford 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and the concept deserves a mention here and there on other Star Trek pages, but not its own article. AnteaterZot 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that provides a nice bit of real world info. We could use this quote from Brannon Braga: "In the original series, it was established that in 1996, half the human race was killed in the Eugenics Wars. Well, what do you do? Do you pay attention to that, or do you just glide on by? ...We're too busy really to sit down and read all of the Internet mail that comes in on all of this stuff. If we did that, we'd have to hire other people to do the television series." (Phil Rosenthal. "Enterprising series 'Star Trek' fans will get a jolt with high- tech slant of new prequel". Chicago Sun-Times. 18 July 2001. – available from Factiva, and probably other newspaper archives.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously. Google Scholar turns up a handful of scholarly works that examine the topic in varying degrees of detail. In addition to the Eugenics Wars book mentioned already (which turns up as the first Google Scholar result), there is also an entire book that examines the issues of race in Star Trek--a discussion in which the topic of eugenics is almost unavoidable. (Bernardi, Daniel (February 1998). Star Trek and History: Race-Ing Toward a White Future. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0813524660.) A couple of the papers that don't directly examine the topic or don't examine it in depth use the Star Trek Encyclopedia as a source. These are papers which have been published in peer reviewed journals. I would posit that if that's good enough for a peer-reviewed journal, it's good enough for us. This book (in German), cites it to discuss the Eugenics Wars in Star Trek with regard to how it compares to concepts of artificial and augmented humans in other science fiction. There is also this paper which was published in the European Journal of American Culture that comes up in the search and cites and discusses the content of the two Eugenics Wars books by Greg Cox and puts them into a broader context of "multiple histories" in Star Trek. (Unfortunately, the full text of the article is accessible only with payment or through certain academic databases, the latter of which I have access to, so you'll probably just have to take my word on it. It's on page 172, though, if you can access the article somehow.) LaMenta3 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't read 'em, for two different reasons, sorry. AnteaterZot 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you can't read them doesn't mean that they don't exist or that they're not reliable. LaMenta3 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could always go to a library. :) Zagalejo^^^ 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is up to the keepers to establish notability, not for us to believe it on blind faith.Judgesurreal777 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you for real? It isn't my fault (or anyone else's but YOUR OWN) that you're too lazy to go to a library. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So we are to take your word for it that this is notable? Don't think so, and policy doesn't support that. Either source the article, or your just wasting our time. Judgesurreal777 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • LaMenta provided enough information that you could track down the sources yourself if you had doubts about any of them. You don't have to take her on blind faith. Now, should someone use the sources in the article? Sure, but be patient. It takes time to do this stuff properly. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just took the time to properly use citation templates, and added the references found in this discussion so far to a "References" section in the article. The article could certainly use a lot more work, but it's a step in the right direction. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:OR, take your pick it fails all of them. Ridernyc 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you even look at the articles? You've pasted the same string, complete with missing space between delete and WP:Plot, on several nominations. Ideally, you'd look the article and disccusion in question and only use the acronyms relevant to that particular discussion. For example, LaMenta3 clearly showed that it passes WP:RS before you left your comment. Not that it doesn't fail something else that you ent is now sourcedmentioned, but I'd appreciate a little effort in this particular discussion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and passes sourcing tests. Sorry, Ridernyc, this fails none of them. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can say that as much as you like, but it is meaningless unless you can produce some references. Judgesurreal777 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors already have, earlier on in this very discussion. You appear to be simply refusing to look at them. That wholly undermines any argument that you may have about verifiability. Go and read the sources that have been cited. Then your argument will hold some weight. Uncle G 03:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • mind explaining that, it's easy to say anything. For example how is this not a vioaltion of WP:Plot. Actually read the policy before you reply. Ridernyc 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mandsford. Xihr 03:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no sources have been provided at all, there is no claim in any comments made here that sources mention the topic. "there is also an entire book that examines the issues of race in Star Trek--a discussion in which the topic of eugenics is almost unavoidable. (Bernardi, Daniel (February 1998). Star Trek and History: Race-Ing Toward a White Future. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0813524660. )" the editor is making a rather large assumption there. Ridernyc 06:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not an assumption. The topic is discussed in the book. You're grasping at straws. LaMenta3 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right I'm the on grasping at straws.Ridernyc 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the book's index here, you'll see that it is mentioned on at least two pages. Not that great, I admit, but it's a start. Zagalejo^^^ 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Verifiable, notable, cited. Ursasapien (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article describes an aspect of Star Trek that is notable. It is mentioned in many episodes and several novels. Although the current article is all plot summary, it can be improved. Johnred32 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means, demonstrate its notability through referencing that has been asked for countless times in this discussion if you would care to read it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a no brainer as a keep. --David Reiss (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Content is now sourced with citations improving (although some cleanup is still needed). The topic is thematically significant to the series and notable as a cross-cutting plot device among Star Trek series. As such, it documents a notable aspect of ST. Banazir (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there are maybe two references that are notable, and neither are actually put as inline citations, so we have no idea if they actually talk about the Eugenics war, the rest of the inline citations are references to fan sites reiterating the plot of the episodes that deal with the Eugenics war, which is not what we are looking for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific, please? Which two, Okuda and Okuda (The ST Chronology) and... Cox (The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh)? Bernardi (Star Trek and History: Race-Ing Toward a White Future)? If you mean both of the Cox books, surely you aren't insisting that print references do not suffice in this case? If you mean the Cox books as one reference, what about the Star Trek Encyclopedia, as others have mentioned? And either way, what is wrong with the episode summaries at Startrek.com as primary source and the Memory Alpha articles as secondary ones? Banazir (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely am not saying anything about preferring print materials, I'm just wondering if the potentially notable references are currently used in the article, or what their contents are. The in-universe references are used in-line, while the potentially notable ones are not listed in such a way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reference to the "Eugenics Wars argument" as a dystopian scenario under Transhumanism is relevant and adds somewhat to the general (story universe-external) notability of this article as a popular culture trope. (While we're here: that is an awful article on tropes. Could someone please improve it? If no one else will, I'll add it to my "to-do eventually" list.) Banazir (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major concept of a major entertainment franchise, referred to repeatedly, and is also a major example of fiction that predicts a third world war-style conflict. The guideline being quoted is not policy and the very guideline itself says it's not set in stone. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about notability, please participate in it and make your keep arguments related to both this dicussion and Wikipedia policy, repeating endlessly how "major" it is does not prove it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm satisfied by the reliable sources cited for notability purposes. Keep the in-uni tag, though; it still needs some work. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm glad your satisfied, but what proof is there that this is notable? Thus far, we have two potential references that aren't even cited in the article, and a bunch of fan sites that are, that's not strong proof. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources". Whether those sources are currently cited in the article is irrelevant; that is an editorial issue, not a cause for deletion. The Cartesian skepticism involved in doubting the relevance of the sources presented, especially considering there are books that have the words "Eugenics Wars" in the title, is unhelpful and seems to me to be evidence of a refusal to assume good faith. DHowell (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. However, AfD seems the quickest way to unearth these sources (other than doing one's own research). SharkD (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about anything and everything related to Star Trek is handled in reliable secondary sources. It's just one of the facts about the franchise. SharkD (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Consensus is to Keep based on the view that reliable sources can be found and used to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion War[edit]

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

The article is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine television show articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic, and reads like a story. Redrocketboy 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unencyclopedic is rather subjective and a non-reason. Subject matter is notable within the Star Trek universe and subject matter was more than a singular story line. It is also an underlying theme within much of the series and article worthy as it explains the largest subplot within the series. Pharmboy 14:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was pretty clear in saying that it is unencyclopedic because it doesn't meet our guidelines, such as verification and notability. And if it is such a strong "theme", then by all means, show that it has some notability. Judgesurreal777 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can make it meet the verifiability guidelines by citing the episodes themselves. I think it's pretty clearly notable, being the most major plot of the series, but finding appropriate secondary sources may take some time -- a Google search brings up a ton of stuff, but sorting out the reliable sources can be difficult, and things like newspaper reviews or magazine articles may not be online. Some work needs to be done on reducing the in-universeness of the style, of course, but that's a separate issue from whether the article should exist. Pinball22 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be difficult, but it is required that that type of notability be established; we need information like the writers discussing how they developed the plot, what arguments they had, fan reaction from prominent publications, etc. That is what is required to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I thought that notability only need be ASSERTED to qualify under wp:notability (ala: speedy). The issue would be verification under wp:rs, and there are thousands of sources but not all meet wp:rs. It is like picking out a particular needle, in a stack of needles. I'm trying to be sincere about this, and please don't take this wrong, but it sounds like the arguements against are mainly arguments for improving but don't qualify as arguments for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand its frustrating, but in order to have an article on wikipedia you must demonstrate some or in fact ANY notability. If you could do that, we would be in the realm of article research and improvement, or merging or something like that, but otherwise it fails the "should it have its own article test". You should, however, make sure that this article is already at the Star Trek fan wikis so the information is not lost to those who love Star Trek, like me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am reading the actual policy, wp:notability, and fail to see how it fails. Whether it is cited enough is another issue but notability is asserted and supported within the article. Maybe a REFERENCES tag would better be in order for a few weeks. Pharmboy (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If fails by having no notability proven through reliable sources. That's it. Its not that its unreferenced, its that there are no references to add, so there is no notability, and should be no article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make sense. A subject can be notable but not properly referenced (verified). Verifiable is not the same as Notable, and I think you are confusing the two. I can write an article about George Washington with no citations, and assert notability while not providing references (verify). Pharmboy (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying that there are no references to add is making a big assumption in this case -- that was my point about them taking some time to find. There shouldn't be any urgency to delete an article that seems notable when we know it's verifiable -- tag the article as needing proof of notability, make sure people from appropriate WikiProjects are aware of the problem, and give it some time. Pinball22 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of time since the article was created to establish any notability, but all that has been done is assembling a massive in-universe plot repetition. There are a few days, they should use them to find creator commentary and that stuff, because I haven't been able to. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - major ongoing concept of a major entertainment franchise, referred to repeatedly in not only DS9 but films as well. The guideline being quoted is not policy and the very guideline itself says it's not set in stone. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but stub-ify. The DS9 Companion has a lot of material about the development of this story arc, and sites like TrekWeb and TrekToday have interviews (or blurbs of interviews) from actors and other folks involved with the franchise offering their like/disdain for the events. Ron Moore's post-Voyager interviews, which I believe are accessible via TGL, also delve into the arc's development. Plenty of reliable sources are accessible; trimming plot and offering this real-world perspective would be a good kick. And while I think a lot of the article's content needs to go, it would probably be beneficial to retain the edit history since the topic itself is notable. --EEMIV (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trust you on the available sourcing, but should the article just be kept as is for the edit history? What's to keep it from stagnating as is until somebody eventually brings it all together? It's nothing but lots and lots of WP:PLOT right now, why not delete it as articularlly unacceptable now to have it built properly from scratch? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I was about to suggest some utility to retaining the edit history, but probably there isn't. And now that deleted articles link to the AfD for article re-creators to see, it's not like this discussion would disappear. Eh. Eh. --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you get the chance EEMIV, would you put one or two in the article? That way we can establish notability for all to see and then we can withdraw the nomination, as my concern, that no references existed anywhere, will be addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established (another source is Star Trek: The Human Frontier, as well as dozens of independently-written published novels); let the editors who would be using the available sources decide whether any of the present material is useful in rewriting the article or not. Unless the people arguing to delete are personally going to rewrite the article from scratch (in which case, there is still no reason to delete, as they can just replace the existing article), destroying the existing article by assuming it is useless to future editors is presumptuous. DHowell (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as plot summary with a topping of WP:OR. Beyond a token mention that the topic is fictional, there is no connection out-of-universe. It may be the core plot of DS9, but notability for this sub-work of fiction must come from acknowledgment, commentary, or criticism based in the real world. No WP:reliable sources are cited. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify per EEMIV and start over based on real-world sources. The article as currently written is unacceptable, but, if WP:RS are available to salvage it and establish notablilty, I'll hold my fire. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect/merge to List of Star Trek regions of space once it is created. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands (Star Trek)[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect and maybe get a project to do that rather than forcing the issue. Agathoclea 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge No notable real world info - doesn't appear to have much in-universe notability either. Ejfetters 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The proposer clearly hasn't read the article, which is not about the Star Fleet universe. This cavalier attempt to delete the work of other, good-faith editors is uncivil and disruptive. Colonel Warden 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the article again, it is in-universe Star Trek article, with only a couple of sentences. Ejfetters 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the proposal again. Proposer says the article is about the "Star Fleet game". It isn't. Colonel Warden 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor detail, it has info about game and show.Ejfetters 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry about that, was tagged incorrectly, but the article still needs to assert notability. Judgesurreal777 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable in our universe, doesn't deserve it's own article. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has one source demonstrating notability. Additional sources can be added. Rray (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is from a fan encyclopedia and does not count. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With acknowledgements to User:Carcharoth: This is verifiable non-notable information that can be merged to an article on a notable topic to provide the wider context that is needed. A list does not require reliable sources to establish the independent notability of its constituent items; all that is required is that the concept being listed is notable. The individual items do not have to be notable. Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly states the following:

"If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event."

It is clear here that mergers of the locations are viable, like minor characters, and would provide sufficient context to retain brief information when any excessive plot summary info has been stripped out. As for redirecting: keeping redirects is cheap, allows categorisation e.g. by series, and prevents existing links from going red. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge, but don't delete: The Badlands are the subject of at least two published novels and I believe calling The Star Trek Encyclopedia a mere "fan encyclopedia" (and thus implying it is not a reliable source) is an extreme insult to Mike and Denise Okuda, who are recognized as the authorative experts on all things Star Trek. DHowell (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing against them, but we need stuff coming right from the mouths of the creators of this place in Star Trek, and information like that, and their synthesis would not fill in that gap. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As he was a graphic designer and technical consultant for TNG and later series, I'd guess that Mike Okuda _is_ one of the "creators of this place".--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons[edit]

Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This page is completely redundant to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, has no additional useful content, and it is all Original research. The whole page describes an image, and we can just show the image. The exact description isn't relevant to the controversy anyway, only what they were of (Muhammad). Prodego talk 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with image description page, or Delete the image if appropriate (currently it appears to be fine). --Thinboy00 @986, i.e. 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not at all redundant, very useful and informative for non-danish persons. I don't see any original research, only translation from Danish into English. -- Nikolaj Winther 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A translation that is unsourced. If you look on the talk page, it's accuracy has been questioned. Thinking about this now, this probably belongs on the image description page, as Thinboy suggests.Prodego talk 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources can be provided. No need to delete an article because it lacks sources. Regarding the translation controversies on the talk page, the ip-user is completely wrong in his direct translation. Perhaps I should address this on the talk page? But I am glad to see that you don't want it deleted after all. I am still under the impression that this is best described in an article of its own, and can concur with the arguments 82.95.254.249 has come with as well. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've described all my reasons for opposing this on the talk page when I removed the proposed deletion notice. I can't vote here anyway and I'm not going to repeat those reasons in full, but they are at the end of the talk page for those who care. In brief: sources can be provided, the description is useful for non-Danish and the blind, and the information certainly contributes to a better understanding of the conflict. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Absolutely nothing redundant about this page. It describes an image that is the subject of a crisis and that it is even up for deletions on account of redundant is nearly incomprehensible to me. That the initiator thinks there is no useful content here, makes me a tiny bit suspicious of the motives behind this deletion nomination, as it in my view is beyond any doubt that this page contains nothing but useful information. We might as well remove any description of subject like; flags, Declaration of Independence, the Bible, Amarna letters ect… they must on the same account contain “no useful information” and be redundant. In my view it is not original research to translate from one language to another, it is used all over wiki in 1000 of articles dealing with non-English subjects. Tab in KGB and you will see a translation in the first line, but no source. It might be an issue with dead languages or when only few know the facts about certain words. But there are 10 million people that speak Danish in the world, 5m of them living in Denmark. One might as well systematically put all Danish articles up for deletion, in that most of them would contain “original research” in form of translations.Twthmoses (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source - it's a useful sub-article, since Wikipedia should be accessible to the blind and understanding of this controversy is impossible without understanding the content of the cartoons. - Chardish (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that the place to explain an image for the blind would be on the page that it is always linked to, the description page. Wouldn't you agree. Prodego talk 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I don't see the need to have it stand alone, it would be fine with the parent article. By the way, people seem to be worried about blind people having descriptions of the image. Would blind people be able to read the descriptions? :) It's amazing what technology can do! J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Idlers (band)[edit]

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

The article's subject is an apparently non-notable band. The article gives no independent sources and does not assert notability.

Also nominating for deletion for the same reason the related articles:

These articles were created by the same person and consist of the discography of the same band. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Steed[edit]

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

Should actually be a speedy deletion but user keeps removing templates. Subject in unnotable and the page is only used to show drunken pictures. Mikemill 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete and report user for vandalism, assuming you have warned him a couple of times. Pharmboy 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment already reported for vandal, will wait for block, then speedy, per norm. Pharmboy 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly speedy delete, non-notable, db-bio clearly applies. --barneca 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block user for vandalism. Wildthing61476 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in the Barossa Valley[edit]

List of wineries in the Barossa Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)This article dangerously ressembles a list. Most items would fail the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide test. They are not notable. Winetype 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hate to cut and paste, but it hold true for both articles. "It doesn't dangerously ressemble a list. It is EXACTLY a list. So is List of guitar manufacturers. There are lots of lists on Wikipedia, and I would say this is worthwhile. So far as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide, that is not policy, it is an essay. And it doesn't fail it anyway, as it isn't commending on anything subjective about wine such as the 'right' grapes, etc." It would seem with that many wineries in one area, the topic is notable enough for a list. Pharmboy 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since when has "this dangerously resembles a list" been a valid criteria for deletion? Especially on an article entitled "List of...". As for the actual article itself, I think what it IS dangerously resembling is a directory. There are far too many redlinks in that list for my liking, although as Pharmboy points out, not a wine guide isn't policy. However, I think there is some potential for improvement here, perhaps by cutting down on the less notable wineries in the list and perhaps some expansion of the more notable ones. Tx17777 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a list that seems to meet the purposes specified in WP:LIST. Not sure at all where the nominator is going on this. Needs a lead, referencing, removal of redlinks that will never be articles but this is all a case for cleanup not deleting - Peripitus (Talk) 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the scope should be narrowed to be notable wineries - that is wineries that pass WP:N or WP:CORP hence could reasonably be the subject of an article.Garrie 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Garrie. Twenty Years 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's... erm... a list. That meets WP:LIST. And whose title begins with "List of". I'm having difficulty understanding the rationale for deletion here. Lankiveil (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - the value of lists is that they can include red links for missing articles. However for an article to be "missing", its subject needs to be notable. How many of these are notable? The rest (if retained) should have their square brackets removed to discourage the creation of articles about NN subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources must be found, however. The current source link is broken. Auroranorth (!) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Second Pharmboy. --Kieran Bennett (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vineyards and wineries[edit]

List of vineyards and wineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability Winetype 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article dangerously ressembles a list. Most items would fail the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide test. They are not notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It doesn't dangerously ressemble a list. It is EXACTLY a list. So is List of guitar manufacturers. There are lots of lists on Wikipedia, and I would say this is worthwhile. So far as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide, that is not policy, it is an essay. And it doesn't fail it anyway, as it isn't commending on anything subjective about wine such as the 'right' grapes, etc. While I am confident you mean well with the nomination, I would respectfully disagree and request a speedy keep. Pharmboy 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would be impossible to maintain as a list, there are millions of vineyards around the world; it seems that even "notable" ones would be a list several miles long. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all respect (and you know I love ya), there are probably not millions. A quick googling of the term "list of wineries" or "list of vineyards" (about 30k in hits each when in quotes) seems to say it is a valid topic, albeit difficult to maintain. Otherwise, we would have to kill List of guitar manufacturers and thousands of other lists that seem pretty much similar in scope. Even List of People has a place and can't be harder to maintain. 2c. Pharmboy 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. I could see this being expanded to include notable wineries, but I'd like to see it in a table format with dates of establishment, etc, and especially a reference column. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- Bduke 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as stated above, there are a multitude of lists on Wikipedia and are valid for organization of topics. As for the wine guide information, that essay again as stated is an essay, not a guideline and even so, the essay is about Wikipedians not suggesting or rating wines. These articles are non-biased information on a business and their products. Even still, this is a list, there is no ranking of importance of any of the wineries in the list. The list could benefit from a bried description on top and even being split into locations, but that is just a suggestion.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Notability is established by the fact that WP articles exist on most of the entries in the list and a list of notable items is notable as such. Expand and improve the list; stop wasting everyone's time witn deletion nominations. Hmains 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only merit in a list (as opposed to a category) is that a list can have red links for articles that are needed, but that in turn requires that the missing items should be notable. This one has a few such links, but are they for notable subjects? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. As it stands, it's a pretty sad list of sporadic entries, but may be lifted to a useful level. Work to build and maintain, sure, but not impossible. Suggestion of Disavian is good, including region, and indexing by nation would help. EL entries without articles should be removed at sight. MURGH disc. 12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasspeedily deleted as copyvio.—Random832 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Conaghan[edit]

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

Biographical article about a non-notable musician. No references or assertion of notability, should have been caught on NP patrol probably. AvruchTalk 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTA (Hi-Tech Applications)[edit]

HTA (Hi-Tech Applications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability, spam, advert Nick Y. 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why would you name your company after a catch phrase? Anyways, Google has a few relevant links regarding this company, but in general it looks to me like it is not notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although, I'd like to say that the number and size of the templates placed on what amount to a stub are slightly obnoxious. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of coherent assertion of notability. That second paragraph might qualify as one, but it's not clear, and certainly not explicated how it would make the company notable anyway. As a side note, I believe I have made the templates less obnoxious. Someguy1221 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom-advertising. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but cleanup. Davewild (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Barratt[edit]

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

Seems to be promotional. — Yavoh 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron83 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June Disciples[edit]

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

This article lacks any notability, and when entered into google search, it seems to return nothing with the exact heading "June Disciples", not anything related to a gang of any sort, seemingly what this article is about. Eastonlee 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom - Information has no citations or references. Basic to advanced searchs shows a lack of notability. --Pmedema 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources. No verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj dummy[edit]

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

DJ not notable. — Yavoh 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is notable - we just need some more information on him - anybody care to contribute? --Jonnydawson 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — Jonnydawson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, no notability asserted. I'm afraid that not even his work with Kanye west qualifies. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete notability not asserted. Pharmboy 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard of DJ Dummy, and my knowledge of music is very minimal; thus I don't feel it should be deleted. I have re-written the original article to make it slightly less biased, and to give a couple of source references. I still don't feel it very complete, but if anyone has further info they want put on the site, I am happy to do thisTimothyJacobson 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TimothyJacobson has added an assertion of notability to the article. Also note there are a couple mentions in news articles, although not too many. See this "Dj+dummy" Google News search. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, Google News links with quotes don't work on MediaWiki, apparently. Just know that there are a couple mentions in reliable sources, and that you can find them to judge WP:N for yourself. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity piece. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yeah, Google news pulls up a few random items (mostly MySpace and YouTube), but nothing anyone other than DJD or his parents would care about. Supremely not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psinu (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kind Bendiksen[edit]

Thomas Kind Bendiksen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Youth footballer, has never played a senior game and is not in the senior squad. So fails WP:BIO for sportspeople. Punkmorten 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible keep I've found these stats which suggests he played for Harstad. Peanut4 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Good catch, but is the Norwegian 2. Division a fully professional league? It's a regional league, so I doubt it has notability, but I could be wrong. Jogurney 03:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the second division is far from professional. Even in the first division (second tier) many players have part-time jobs. Punkmorten (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Norwegian 2nd Division seems to be an amateur league, so delete it. --Angelo 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having played in a professional league. – PeeJay 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Peejay. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since he has only played in a semi-professional league and doesn't appear to otherwise satisfy notability requirement. Jogurney (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly[edit]

Salmon fishing with the Dry Fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was prodded - by another editor - with correct explanation that this is a how-to article in violation of WP:NOT, as well as having no sources - all links that appear to be external are in fact to other Wikipedia articles. Author removed prod notice without any explanation. Your username goes here 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vineyard heights[edit]

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

Delete article about a California gated residential development built in 1993. Mindmatrix 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem to actually be a community, just a gated subdivision. If it were an actual settlement of sorts then I'd say keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like an advertisement, and only claim to notability is the view. Works great in a R/E listing, but that's all it works great in. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertycode[edit]

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

While interesting, no 3rd party verification can be found. Not notable. Pharmboy 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Original author appears to be the person who invented the programming language, which brings up COI issues to boot. Pharmboy 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the code examples work in the compiler link, without any third party sourcing it's not verifiable, much less notable. Suggest transwiki to Wikisource for now, and undelete when someone publishes something in a RS. Dhaluza (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like OR as well as not having reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glued money[edit]

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

This article about a type of prank is uncited & unverfied, and besides, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ginkgo100talk 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: This article is not eligible for speedy deletion or I would already have done it. Prod was removed. --Ginkgo100talk 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was going to write transwiki to Uncyclopedia but it would probably been deleted there as unfunny. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7.SWik78 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 does not apply to games, pranks, or activities. --Ginkgo100talk 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT, obviously something made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:NFT Doc Strange 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no particular opinion on whether this should be kept, but it is definitely not "something made up one day" in the sense defined by WP:NFT. I rememder this being a fairly common activity when I was a teenager, over 30 years ago. Phil Bridger 13:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure whether to keep it, but this is fairly common prank around here and has been around for quite a while. Definitely not made up in one day....I was a victim to this a few years ago! Also, a quick google search shows up many results of people doing the same thing. [11] Knowitall (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It isn't really much of an article. 2 sentences long, poorly written.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contract attorney[edit]

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

1) article is orphaned with no article linking to it 2) Only one anonymous author 3) This article is just a term definition and belongs in Wiki Dictionary 4) Seems like just any excuse for spam links Fife Club 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator. Just wanted to clarify reason #2 was incorrect (was looking at the talk page). Not just one author for this article, but this is still an orphaned article. Perhaps this is better suited for WikiDictionary (and possible link farming). --Fife Club 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The party of the third part agrees with the party of the second part that the party of the first part should be Deleted. Clarityfiend 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known type of legal work. I removed the orphan tag after linking the article to others. Tagged for rescue, cites needed. Bearian 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I'm still working on it. Bearian 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I removed the spam links. Bearian 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I (the original nominator) think this is great that somebody is taking the initiative to fix up the issues with this article. My biggest issue was definitely that it was orphaned (making it a useless article), but it appears you've already fixed that, plus added a few citations too. Good job. I'm okay with Keeping the article after the fix ups. (P.S. The only reason I found this article was because I was following the past contributions of a known spammer, which is a totally different story.) --Fife Club 19:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and recreate as redirect to The Catherine Tate Show characters#Derek Faye. Davewild (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Faye[edit]

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

Fictional character with no indication of notability, and no sources to establish real world relevance. — Coren (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Secret account 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary relay[edit]

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

I'm not a biologist but it looks like this is just a neologism. P4k 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need to be a biologist. You simply need to be an encyclopaedist. An encyclopaedist looks for secondary source material dealing with a subject. A mere 3 minutes' work with Google Books turns up several books — including ISBN 0226742695, ISBN 0192806688, and ISBN 0226728242 — which describe the idea of evolutionary relay in paleobiology and in their turns point to a paper by House that should also be relevant. Your very first step when bringing things to AFD should be to look for sources yourself. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Keep. Uncle G 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: G, if you refer to 'Ammonoid Extinction Events' by House et al. 1989, do observe that the usage there refers to the succession of different species in a particular ecological niche, rather than what is currently in the article. I find only a couple of papers using the term as in the article (maybe three). Michaelbusch 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... which can be addressed by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, to bring the article into line with the sources, without need for an administrator to use any administrator tools at all. The House paper cited by others is dated 1985, by the way. Uncle G 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nobody here is an encyclopedist.P4k 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Largely a neologism, and seems to have interchangeable meaning with convergent evolution, which is by far more common. Maybe re-write per G's comment, but seems strained. Michaelbusch 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Michaelbusch. It's rather obscure, and in technical writings seems often to be part of a pretty metaphor, "evolutionary relay race", rather than a specific technical phrase. I find quite a few ghits, but they are very largely from dictionary/encyclopedia sites. If it's in an evolutionary biology textbook, I'll change my mind. Tim Ross·talk 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Evolutionary Biology. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No Consensus between those who see it just as unencyclopedic plot summaries and the opposing view that it is verifiable (and have identified some sources) and can have real life context. Davewild (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of problems solved by MacGyver[edit]

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

Largely originial research and synthesis, fails WP:N, is unattributable and unsalvageably unencyclopedic. If it can be trankswikied to a MacGuyver wiki, it should be. Cumulus Clouds 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of MacGyver episodes. The character's resourcefulness is a significant aspect of the series and how he gets out of problems is (for me, ahem) the highlight of an episode. However, this list cannot stand on its own two feet for the reasons given in the nomination, but a "problems solved" column can easily be added to the LOE (in the same way List of House episodes has a "diagnosis" column). Brad 13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I withdraw that, as I didn't notice how many "problems solved" were listed for each episode. Brad 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot of content that can be considered to be the essence of MacGyver. Trivially verifiable per the actual television program. Further, Wikipedia is not paper, so we're not exactly worried about running out of space. -- Masterzora 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as largely unverifiable, trivial, and indiscriminate info. Title is also very POV. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MacGyver's inventiveness -- his ability to get out of any situation with "baling wire and a pocket knife" -- is pretty much the character's defining characteristic in popular consciousness. The list as it stands does not, however, do a good job of justifying the subject's notability. I note that it is being continuously worked-on; if the current editors were to, say, cannibalize sources from the main article that explain this notability (in, say, the lead) AND were to start explicitly, instead of implicitly, citing the episodes where MacGyver got inventive, I'll vote Keep. If they don't by the end of the AfD (and I really hope they do) I will change that to a reluctant delete. For the nominator's concerns for verifiability, I point out that per WP:WAF, for events/plot of a work of fiction, the work itself is a valid and acceptable primary source. (I share the above POV concerns about the title, btw.) —Quasirandom 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    Given the changes to the article so far, I now definitely vote keep -- and hope the editors continue improving it in this manner. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:Fict, WP:RS. Basically a long list of plot elements with no real world conetext, that relies on primary sources. Ridernyc 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is verifiable per WP:WAF. As for notability, the list doesn't do the best job of showing it in its current incarnation, but I feel that the article can show notability per Quasirandom. --Goobergunch|? 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relevant real world context is in the main MacGyver article, if the people working on this article could include some of the real world information in this article, that would be great. It is OK to source the actual problems that MacGyver solves from the TV programme itself, per WP:WAF#Primary_information. I suggest moving the article to List of MacGyverisms. Bláthnaid 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete This is perfect for a fan wiki, but totally unsuitable in content and presentation for wikipedia. Major WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT issues and more. That Macguyver was inventive can be said and illustrated in two short paragraphs in the main article, so listing every occurence in every episode is completely unnecessary. (I checked, but I couldn't find a macguyver wikia. This doesn't mean that this article should remain on wikipedia.) – sgeureka t•c 21:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak neutral I agree that most of the material (In episode X, MacGyver does Y) is verifiable using primary sources, and there is nothing wrong with that. The subject is notable, and notable for this very thing. However, there is a lot of OR in the article (which could in principle be excised) and silly icons, and this level of detail does border on a trivia collection. — brighterorange (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Transwikied this material to the Macgyver Wiki. That article was originally copy and pasted to the MacWiki from this article, so I have updated it with the current version. Cumulus Clouds 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masterzora. Trivially verifiable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funny how everyone ignores WP:Plot, article hopelessly fails policy. Ridernyc 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, it's not plot summaries -- it's specific events. And more context and sourcing in the lead would make it quite defintely not all plot. —Quasirandom 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
call them what ever you want it's a list of plot elements from a tv show.Ridernyc 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth WP:NOT#PLOT: "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot" -- these aren't detailed, and they aren't the whole plot. —Quasirandom 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have to be joking. Ridernyc 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the annoying little icons next to each episode because, well, they're annoying. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete the List until it is archived elsewhere. comment from 71.202.20.183 (talk · contribs) that was left on this nomination's talkpage. Bláthnaid 10:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A book [12] has been published that is entirely about MacGyverisms. This shows that MacGyverisms have real-world notability, and can be sourced from reliable secondary sources. Bláthnaid 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still dose not change the fact that article has no real world context and is just summary of plot elements. Ridernyc 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, there is real world context in the main MacGyver article that can be moved into this article. Here is some more real world context: [13] [14] [15]. There is a cute book here called What Would Macgyver Do?: True Stories of Improvised Genius in Everyday Life. (By the way, I can't get the blasted theme tune out of my head now :p) Bláthnaid 10:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, and sgeureka. Holy god, delete. Xihr (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I actually came looking on wiki for a list of some of the ways MacGyver solved problems. Verifying is trivial for anyone who watches the actual episodes, and being a work of pop fiction, I don't think a few errors or omissions matter. Instead, just add a note to the beginning encouraging people to further improve the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seriously, is there any real value to be had in this? Achromatic (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per Masterzora -- Penubag  01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is essentially a collection of plot snippets, not an encyclopedic article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some real world context about how the creative team behind MacGyver chose the problems. Some were suggested by scientists, some from a write-in competition, and I've read that G. Gordon Liddy even suggested some. (Unfortunately, I didn't read the Liddy part in a RS, so I can't add it to the article yet.) There is more information available eg here. More real world context that could be added include whether the MacGyverisms worked in real life (some didn't to prevent children from injuring themselves), which could be sourced using the book I mentioned above. If the article is kept, I will trim down the plot elements. Bláthnaid 09:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Mall (Queens)[edit]

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

Non-notable small mall in New York, seems to fail WP:RS (I should know, since I tried to source this article before). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for "Metro Mall Queens." Blueboy96 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, possible speedy per A7, not sure so not tagged. --Thinboy00 @998, i.e. 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Take it from me - I have been in this "mall" on numerous occasions; my best friend lives in nearby Ridgewood, Queens. Neither he, nor I, nor the mall is remotely notable. Soxthecat (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Diplomatic missions of Romania. Non-admin closure. Tx17777 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian diplomatic missions[edit]

Romanian diplomatic missions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diplomatic missions of Romania contains the same information (I think). Delete Romanian diplomatic missions and insert redirect to Diplomatic missions of Romania. Kransky 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Pages have exactly the same info and the only difference is a couple of fairly unnecessary photos of random embassies, so as I can't see any point in having two practically identical pages I have performed the necessary redirect as per WP:BOLD. Tx17777 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Night the Animals Talked (not by me), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The night the animals talked[edit]

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

This article has been duplicated using its corrected title--so this exists already on "The Night the Animals Talked", and this one should be removed.

Agree. Nothing more needs to be said - this is a duplicate now. Merenta 18:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the page to a redirect per WP:BOLD, I don't see a need for deletion. hateless 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Oaks[edit]

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

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just a repetition of various plot facts from the Gone With the Wind movie article, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's not the plot, it's the setting. There are enough books and articles about GWTW to source it easily enough. Sourceable is sufficient to avoid deletion.DGG (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing encyclopedic about it, and it is just repetition of the plot of Gone with the Wind. As there is no commentary of any kind from an outside perspective, it is totally unencyclopedic to have an article of just unsourced plot repetition. Look around, you wont find any policies supporting that. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, adds nothing to the GWTW articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last paragraph of this article is not a plot summary and it is from an outside perspective. This is a location that appears in both one of the best-selling books and most popular films of all time. Two minutes on Google Books is all it takes to find references [16] [17]. I have added 2 references to the article. Bláthnaid 11:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. discounting the WP:SPA Secret account 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deliantra (computer game)[edit]

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

Article shows no citations for independent, reliable coverage required for notability (WP:N), and has no third-party references for (WP:V). My original prod in October was contested on the grounds that the subject is of historical interest, however see the comments on my talk page here - User talk:Marasmusine#Fishy Deliantra claims - these claims seem to be confused with Crossfire (computer game) (itself of dubious notability, but that's a different matter.) Marasmusine 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I still think it is notable for the reasons stated in the discussion page. Since no original Crossfire developers are around (being such an old project this is no surprise), it is hard to tell which of the two Crossfires is more original (both were named Crossfire intiially). The fact that one projetc renamed itself to avoid further confusion should not be held against it, the term "fishy" is not appropriate. Both this and crossfire are doubtlessly notable for their influence on realtime rpg gaming in general (but maybe the pages should be merged). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that Deliantra is a fork of Crossfire, born in 2006 from the work of a minority of developers. The first versions of the Deliantra Wikipedia page, written by one of the main Deliantra's contributors, explicitely confirm this by saying The project started in May 2006 and had constantly progress since then. It is well possible that Deliantra influenced the gaming scene after that date, but this has yet to be proven.80.201.137.68 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I also think that the project is notable due to it's heritage but also because it is after all one of

the very few really free (free as in free software) MMORPGs around that are still very active. There was considerable development (technical enhancements on the engine, balancement of the game data, addition of new content) for the last 2 years. It so represents a notable continuation of a very old project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmex (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The issue is notability, not the guidelines. The guidelines itself say that they are not set in stone and that there are other reasons for an article being notable. The goal is to verify the notability of the article, not to follow the guidelines as if they were law (at least thats actually written on the page, and also why its called a guideline). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of the guideline of "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", you wish to claim that Deliantra is noteworthy because it was influential, one of few free MMORPGs that are still active, and is a continuation of an old project. If we agree to accept that, then those points will still need backing up with reliable, third-party references, per WP:V, which is not a guideline but one of Wikipedia's core policies. Marasmusine (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First: the influence of Deliantra over the gaming scene has not been proven so far; those claims would benefit from being backed up by facts. Second: other games like Daimonin got their Wikipedia webpage removed, despite being a quite active free MMORPG - so it is fair policy to apply the same rules to everybody. Finally, being a fork of a long-standing project doesn't make one worthy of an article.80.201.137.68 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that Daimonin (for example) is not free: the content is closed, as is the case with most other "free" mmorpgs, they are only partially free (code, usually not content). Also, the fatc that its free is easily verifiable by its soruce license or by checking existing third-party references like happypenguin or freshmeat, both of which list it as free. It seems all you do is claim its not verifiable, when in fatc it actually is, from the article. Verifiability is not a problem, and remember that "the othe rpage was alos removed" is not a valid point in a deletion discussion. If any of the mentioned third-party sources are missing from the article I can easily enough add them to the list of external links.
    1 - That the in-game content of Daimonin's main server is not publicely available is irrelevant - the software code itself is, and so are the tools to create content; it is like saying koffice is not free software because it can be used to create and display documents whose content is not free. Also note that I do not believe Wikipedia should give different value for free and non-free software regarding notability: a (modern) encyclopedia should strive to stay as neutral as possible in its information selection process.
    2 - I note that your long answer didn't address points one and three, for a timeframe for which Deliantra was unquestionably a separate project from its "ancestor" (thus since early/mid 2006 if I'm correctly reading); if you can easily add third-party sources clearing those two points, please do so.81.169.96.69 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the freeness of the game as whole it is of course veryrelevant that the content is closed: That part of the game is free is irrelevant: the game as a whole isn't, you cannot play it with the free parts alone, and thats quite a significant difference to games that are free as a whole. As for point two, the point is not giving free software or content higher priority, the point is that its a very rare game in that it is fully free, which is the absolute exception (you will be hard pressed to find _any_ other game which is both fully free and is also fully playable and developed into a real game, as opposed to some demo world). I also do not understand what is unclear regarding any timeframes - the project got another name so it doesn't conflict with the many other things named "crossfire" (such as ATIs crossfire technology). It has not become a separate project from its own, it still understands its old data files and it still talks to clients written when it was named differently, it was just renamed (a few times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready room (Star Trek)[edit]

Ready room (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Ready Room.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Is entirely in-universe plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article is not written in strict in-universe perspective; it's an article about the concept as it relates to the show. Abstain from voting, don't want to go research Star Trek cruft. Seems like a decently put-together article; better than Family Guy cruft. ;) --- tqbf 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There needs to be an assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a great article for the Star Trek wiki but needs sources to establish notability outside of Star Trek. The reference to the Royal Navy might be interesting to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per points by tqbf. Not written in an in-universe style, and the mention of the Royal Navy thing is interesting. Admittedly, it's unreferenced (outside of episode references) and I'll go ahead and tag it with {{refimprove}}. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch me be unhelpful:
  1. Here's a bunch of news hits referencing the Trek "ready room", suggesting coverage in reliable secondary sources
  2. Here's the actual "Ready room" article on Wikipedia, where analysis about the concept of a ready room could go, allowing much of this content to be merged (into general Trek articles, and into "in popular culture" on the "Ready room" article).
Repeat: I abstain. :) --- tqbf 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you are helpful :) I could see tqbf's merger, giving Ready room a nice, sourced section titled "In Star Trek". My only concern is that the section about Star Trek would be longer than the rest of the article! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I had a look at all Star Trek articles linking to this page, and they mention it in a dict-def kind of way, which Ready room already provides. The news.google.com pages also seem to ask just for a dict-def, so this article is definitely not needed (on wikipedia). – sgeureka t•c 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sly (goblin character)[edit]

Sly (goblin character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, WP:RS WP:OR. Even the parent article Make Way for Noddy doesn't appear to bother linking to it. Verdatum 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, has nothing to add other than the basic description already provided on Make Way for Noddy other than strange OR discussion of homosexuality. -- Mithent 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline CSD G1. --- tqbf 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Contact me or another admin for restoration once you are convinced the film meets the notability guideline WP:N. Sandstein (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLAST (movie)[edit]

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

Delete nn film - not mentioned on IMDB Mayalld 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Merge into Paul Devlin (filmmaker). Topic has some notability, but not enough for own article. --Son 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently awaiting the film's profile to be approved on IMDB. Until then, please feel free to visit our official website blastthemovie.com to confirm the legitimacy of the film. --Bloodybonnie 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appearance on IMDB doesn't confirm notability, even if it does confirm that the film exists. Fails WP:FILM. For what it's worth: filmmakers, studios, and films that have appeared in IMDB have lost AfD votes in the past. --- tqbf 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would we need to add to the page to make it not viable for deletion? --Bloodybonnie 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It isn't about what you have to add to the page. The criteria is that the film must be notable. WP:FILM describes what is required of the film Mayalld 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I gave you that wrong; it's WP:NOTFILM, not WP:FILM. To answer your question directly: the easiest thing to find and add would be reviews or awards covered by two nationally known publications. Note that blogs and self-published online magazine are rarely accepted as sources. Note also that it's not necessarily best for your film to have an article right now. Maybe it's too early? It's easy to re-add the article later, when you've received more coverage. If the coverage you get is obvious (a review in the LA Times, etc), you won't even have to stick up for the article; other people who watch AfD votes will do it for you. --- tqbf 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, thank you very much for your explanation. Perhaps we will have to hold off on the article, since the film is still in post-production and therefore hasn't received reviews yet. Sorry for all the confusion, I'm new to the whole world of wiki-editing!--Bloodybonnie 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pick Me Up Magazine[edit]

Pick Me Up Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. There are dozens of this type of magazine on the market and there is no apparent reason why this stands out from them. Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:NOTE- Although this appears as a second AfD, there might be a problem with WP:Twinkle and it has been reported. It seems to have been previously speedied, in which case no record will exist unless an admin undeletes the original. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn magazine, already speedied once as an advert Mayalld 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable magazine...feels a bit 'advertisish' to me. --Son 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BIG Question Where is the first nom?—ScouterSig 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See later note added above --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't really say anything about what makes it different than other magazines, other than being cheap. Chrisjtb, if you want the article to not be deleted, you should fix it. Please don't create an article and expect others to accept it when it is sub-standard, or to fix it when you probably know more about it than us. I'm willing to keep a good article about this mag, not this article as it stands. —ScouterSig 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment about notability carries no weight. There are thousands of celebrieties, tennis players, non descript Tv personalities on Wikipedia, who are totally unnotable. Notability whatever that means is no criteria for selection. Sharing knowledge on a past time that hundreds of thousands of women enjoy is.

The article is written in a neutral fashion and it is factually correct. It therfore sheds light on an area that previously had little light. Chrisjtb 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whilst you may believe that notability should not be a criteria, it is a criteria (see WP:N) the fact that other non-notable articles remain is no reason to add another. Mayalld 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case where is the consistency? Either teh other non notable artcles need to be deleted or thsi one accepted!. Chrisjtb 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an old argument, and no more valid now than on every previous occasion its been trotted out. If a policeman stops you for speeding, do you demand that you should be let off, because other people haven't been stopped? The argument that you put forward implies that you believe that this article should be deleted only when every other nn article in wikipedia is deleted. Why do you imagine that this article should be saved until last? Don't you think that other people will demand just the same for their favorite vanity piece? In short, it is an argument that is designed to make it impossible to ever weed out a single vanity article. This article stands or falls on its own notability. Mayalld 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Långrocken[edit]

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

The article needs sources to verify its information. A source is mention at the bottom but it is unclear to what extent that source is used or what that source says. I have not been able to find a mention of "Långrocken" through google searches (other than links to Wikipedia). Previous requests for additional sources have been reverted. [18] [19] If the best source is "The story of Långrocken is also mentioned in the autobiography of Ture Nerman", without further information, then the topic appears unverifiable.

It is also unclear whether this attacker is notable in any way. Is a person notable for attacking "several" women in 1893? Modern sources say nothing of him; possibly not all rapists are notable. Fred-J 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax or non-notable. I was also planning to nominate after getting no response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden#Långrocken (where Fred J probably saw it). The article has basically only been copy edited [20] since creation by 80.217.161.77 in 2005. I haven't found any source independent of Wikipedia. The only alleged source is the autobiography of Ture Nerman which is in 3 volumes with around 1000 pages in total. No page, chapter or volume number is given. Even if Långrocken is mentioned, it seems insufficient for WP:N without other known sources. PrimeHunter 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried searching a few Swedish news paper archives, but came up with nothing. That itself may not be indicative of much, since the events took place over a hundred years ago and the name is not very distinctive. But I wasn't able to satisfy WP:V. If anyone had better luck, it'd be interesting to hear. henrik•talk 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:V. Simply stating "also mentioned in the autobiography of Ture Nerman" is insufficient to qualify as a verifiable source and a quick search of the internet (which doesn't say much since it's an incident that happened more than a century ago) didn't turn up anything except for this article and references to this article. –panda 20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify for inclusion under WP:BIO. So she died of cancer, many people do. Many other more famous people died of the brain cancer this young woman died from (Ivan Noble, for one). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Arguably there are "multiple, nontrivial sources", but the overall impression is that this individual was not notable because many people unfortunately die young from cancer, and WP is not a memorial. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really don't see the notablitliy here. Seems to me that a local college newspaper has written about the person, as well as a local newspaper, and a local news station has done a bit about it. This, to me, does not establish enough notability. Perhaps if there is a Wikipedia: Reno, Nevada edition it could be an article there. --Son 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. SWik78 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How big or long running would the festival have to be to give her notability?Red Fiona 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without limiting the notability requirements to one specific criterion, this article, in my opinion, would have to overcome temporary notability first in order to consider anything else as a proof of notability. It may or it may not become notable but until then Wikipedia should not be treated as a crystal ball.SWik78 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete per WP:N and lack of "keep" votes. A google search returns 13 results (go to the second page for the actual count of 13) with similar results omitted. First two pages are, in order, Wikipedia's page and their site. Subsequent items are about the disease, or appear to be blogs/not reliable. --Thinboy00 @9, i.e. 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not commenting on the article's merits, I'd like to note that WP:SNOW generally takes a clearer consensus. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 5 Deletes, 0 Keeps. How much of a consensus do we need, Disavian? Arbiteroftruth 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Typically more than that, is all I'm saying. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where did you come up with 5 deletes? I'm only counting 4 deletes and 1 comment. SWik78 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Didn't you leave me out? I proposed this deletion, so my vote is an automatic Delete. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good point. I stand corrected. SWik78 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia loebe[edit]

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

Vanispamcruft of non-notable person. Article created by subject. No references to establish notability or verifiability. Nobody of Consequence 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per notability guidelines. The article titled Cynthia loebe used to contain a wiki to article titled Cynthia Loebe which was deleted June 9, 2007 by Mallanox (talk · contribs) as per notability guidelines. The user basically created 2 articles about herself and inter-linked them. The rules under which the first article was deleted should apply to this article in the same fashion. SWik78 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was an expired {{prod}}, not something we can use as a reason to delete this one too unless we want to prod it and wait a week. Easier at this point to go through with the AfD. —David Eppstein 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clubmarx 20:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability Johnbod 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heath School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, unsourced, prod tag removed. AnteaterZot 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Achievements of the school and its alumni have been widely covered. What's in the article weakly satisfies the notability standard. When additional sources are added (feel free to chip in, all), I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modifying vote based on additional data added. Kudos to TerriersFan for his expansion efforts. Anyone else care to roll up their sleeves and chip in? Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see the vaguely-notable alumnus as giving the school any recognition -- the school has nothing to do with his minor success, and elementary schools in general have little claim to their students. However I'm curious to see what TerriersFan or the others can dig up on this one. Unlike most of the apparently non-notable schools, this one has some content -- albeit not sourced or well-written content. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have cleaned up and restructured the article so that it is now a useful, encyclopaedic page. I have added a number of new references and, taken together, there is now the multiple, secondary sources needed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:N as per TerriersFan. Noroton (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by ESkog (talk · contribs). — Scientizzle 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Belt[edit]

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

non-notable neologism, completely unreferenced, seems to be a reference to a nn martial arts club in Kent, UK [21] Mayalld 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Fausey School[edit]

John R. Fausey School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Yet another non-notable elementary school, prod tag removed, sorry to bother AfD with this one. Unsourced. AnteaterZot 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, vandalism. WODUP 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Weaver[edit]

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

Not notable rude Harland1 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have been added since this AfD started that prove notability. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of Romance[edit]

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

Non-notable album, unsourced, page itself says record was unsuccessful. AnteaterZot 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable in that it is the only solo album released by a rather notable singer (Michelle Phillips). Precious Roy 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's nice, excepting the lack of sources. Notability is not inherited. AnteaterZot 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said that notability was inherited. Precious Roy 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm quoting policy. You said it was notable because of the notability of the singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnteaterZot (talk • contribs) 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No I didn't. The singer is notable, yes. But the album is notable because it is the only solo album that singer released. Precious Roy 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Alas, we need a reliable, third-party source that says that. The All Music Guide page doesn't say that, or anything really. AnteaterZot 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) CommentIf a famous (i.e. notable) celebrity got drunk exactly once in their life, at an otherwise unnotable event, and the celebrity did not behave in a notable (i.e. disruptive/press worthy) way, the event would not pass WP:N, right? --Thinboy00 @15, i.e. 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source (All Music Guide entry) has been added to the article. Precious Roy 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added references. Precious Roy 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precious Roy has fixed the sourcing problem and proved notability. Bláthnaid 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article now has references. Spacepotato (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, implemented as a redirect to Crime in India so that content can be merged from the history without breaking GFDL compliance. Sandstein (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crime against foreigners in India[edit]

Crime against foreigners in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Content may be notable but is non-encyclopedic, certainly not deserving of an article of its own. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article isn't really encyclopedic at all. Agree with nom. TheIslander 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Many places in India, like Agra, Rajasthan are popular destinationas among international tourists. And as I have stated, crime occurs in India against foreigners only which are different from general crime in India. Like the scams, the passprt thefts. And the rapes. Rape incidents of foreigners is increasing in India. Bureau of Consular Affairs warned US women not to travel alone in India. This is a big issue. All these non-notable? Non-encyclopedic? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is no reason behind claiming that is article is nonencyclopedic. There are articles like Gun violence in the United States, List of journalists killed in Russia, Caste-related violence in India and so many, all of which are issue-specific. This article is also issue-specific i.e. the criminal incidents foreigners face in India. Foreigners face criminal incidents in India, they face, that is a fact, and many of such incidents have been discussed in the media. If List of journalists killed in Russia be an article, then why not this? So this particular issue can obviously be an article and there is no reason behind claiming this nonencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply What's in the article right now does not sound to me like the kind of crime that specifically targets foreigners. Except for stealing passports, but that is not specific to India either. The information in this article should simply be added to various other articles about crime. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are scams which are committed against foreigners only. Travellers from richer nations are more preferable targets of robbers because of there high purchasing parity. Rape cases on female tourists in India is increasing. All these facts are now added. These are different and issue-specific than general crime in India.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I can see a reason for this article, but there's no evidence from the article that the crime is specifically against foreigners. All of it could be subsumed under the general title of Crime in India, and "oh, yeah, it also happens to foreigners".--Prosfilaes 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This issue will be mentioned in Crime in India article, as there are mention of Corruption in India, Religious violence in India etc, but for all there is a separate article. But in Crime in India article, it would be impossible to mention elaborately about the crimes comitted against foreign citizens. I have just created the article. It would be expanded gradually. There are several incidents of crimes against foreign citizens and tourists in India. There are several rape cases reported in India against foreign citizens. Some high profile cases caused huge upheaval among the political circles also. And there are crimes which are specifically committed against foreign citizens only. Like the scam incidents, the criminal only target foreign citizens. There are several incidents of passport thefts against foreign citizens only. And there are so many. Hence the need of this article. Otolemur crassicaudatus 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Blanchardb above; yes, crimes happen against foreigners, but not generally because they're foreigners. Passport thefts aren't specific to India, and the scams are linked to a Canadian page, which says for more information see [22], which is a completely general page that doesn't mention India.
      • Instead of arguing here, I think you're much better off working on the article. If you can expand the article and fix the issues that we're complaining about, current votes may be changed, and future votes will most likely be cast differently. It's much more likely than that any arguments directly posted to this page will help.--Prosfilaes 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Crime in India - while not notable on its own, it would make a good sub-heading in that article. If the information in this article can stand on its own, it belongs there. -FrankTobia 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; I'm changing my vote, because I think it was entirely unfair to put this article up for AfD less than an hour after it was created. It's a lot easier to judge this article and most any article once it's had time to be created and settle.--Prosfilaes 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep; if there's plenty of space in Crime in India, let's move it there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No need for such an article. Crime in India has plenty of space for such text. Most of this is unreferenced Nikkul 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; Seems pretty well-referenced to me.--Prosfilaes 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This article does not make any sense at all. Passport theft is a big issue faced by tourists visiting Italy. Attacks by neo-nazis against foreigners are increasing day-by-day in Germany. Such incidents happen around the world and are not typical to India (Eventhough the attacks in Germany were carried out because the victims were foreigners). So delete this nonsensical and nonencyclopedic article as soon as possible. Madhavacharya (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsensical? You yourself admit that it does make sense, that these things are happening. Just because things happen around the world, doesn't mean that the specific manifestations in India are not worthy of an article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said these things happen 'around the world' not just in India. If you are keen on stating these incidents, that's fine, but then you have to make such pages for all the countries. But you still don't understand one thing. The incidents happened in India were not against foreigners. Indians also get targeted by such attacks. But the attacks in Germany, for example, were carried out 'only' because the victims were foreigners. So this article is more fitting for Germany and some other european countries. Madhavacharya (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand very well that some of the attacks were carried out specifically against foreigners, like the passport fraud and some of the scams. And the rapes; [23] quotes Jannelie Brink of Holland as saying that "There seems to be a general feeling among Indian men that a woman from the West is easily available". And no, we don't have to simultaneously create articles on the subject for every country in the world. They can be created as needed and as desired.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why don't you understand that passport theft happen in many other countries also? Wikipedia is not place to mention someone's "feelings" about women of the West. Why don't we have to create simultaneous articles about other countries although the attacks there are targeted at foreigners? Madhavacharya (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In India several crimes are comitted against foreigners only, many scam incidents are occured against foreigners only, scam artists prey for foreign tourists. Because of US citizens' high purchasing power, they become preffered targets of criminals. Rape incidents on foreigners is incresing, it is an important and significant issue. Articles on other countries may be created, that doesn't mean this article cannot be kept. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are just repeating your arguments. All these crimes are committed in other countries also. You have not been able to provide any reason for creating such an article just for India. It will be more fitting to create an article about Israeli tourists' drug deals and other foreigners' attempts to smuggle rare animals from India. Madhavacharya (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am not repeating my arguments. I am giving the reason for this article. It is you who is repeating the arguments. If necessary articles ralating to other countries can obviously be created. That doesn't mean this article cannot be kept.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment - Repeating the same flawed arguments to the point of tedium seem to be the user's forte. I direct attention to Talk:Human rights in India where he tried to pull off the same stunt. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This are not flawed arguments. And don't try to disrupt this discussion. This page is purely for debate over the article. I direct attention to this from where other users may be able to know about user Ghanadar's motivations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

            • The reason why we don't have to create every article at once is because we're a volunteer organization, not a bureaucracy. If some one wants to create an article about a notable subject, they can, and others can create articles about their notable subjects when they feel like doing so. He has all the reason he need for creating this articles and not the others; he wants to create this article and not the others.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment: The primary instigator of this article (and other similar anti-India articles in recent days, mr otomelur Crassicaudatus, is presently engaged in a campaign of vote-stacking for this AfD)[24]Ghanadar galpa (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vote-casting policy from me, nor I am anti-Indian. I just want to inform other editors who are interested in the subject. Good editors give vote according to their own judgement. They are not influenced by others. User Ghanadar galpa is busy to spread a dirty propaganda against me and articles I have created. This page is not for discussing about particular editor. So I cannot put much information about Ghanadar here. To know more about user Ghanadar galpa, see this Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: The primary instigator of this article, User Otolemur Crassicaudatus, is presently trolling multiple talk pages trying to canvass for votes and making some pretty nasty accusations against me (all tedious, repetitive and unsubstantiated), not to mention full of some of the most offensively hateful bigotry and prejudice that I have seen to date. Voters need to take note of this.[25][26]. [27][28] [29][30].Should I report him? Ghanadar galpa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See here. TheIslander 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does this have to do with this page? This is for discussing the existence of the article in question, not discussing the behavior of Otolemur crassicaudatus or Ghanadar galpa.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...which is why I said "see here", i.e. continue discussion in the correct place, and end it here. You, however, have continued it. End this discussion now, and continue it in the appropriate places, as per my link above. TheIslander 23:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The information therein if noteworthy can be included under a sub-heading in Crime in India article. -Shyamsunder 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To merge information from the article, it can't be deleted, because that creates problems with the GFLD. That's what the Merge vote is for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OC has created a bunch of nonsensical articles that really serve no purpose except to bash india.Bakaman 21:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsensical? This is a fairly well-sourced article on the subject. It is biased, it's filled with examples instead of synthesis (which would be harder to source, but more useful), but it is anything but nonsensical.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsensical is a poor choice of word. Plain not-needed would be better. There is nothing in this article which suggests that any of this crim in India directed against tourists is specific to India, therefore though a sub-section in the main 'Crime in India' article would probably be a good idea, the content is certainly not notable enough for it's own article. TheIslander 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's already crime in India.--D-Boy (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas films[edit]

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

Unending and unnecessary list of Christmas films. Christmas is notable, obviously, and its treatment in the media, as a well cited over all discussion, is great. However, this is already done in Christmas in the media, making this list redundant as well as being almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Collectonian 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is of a similar nature

List of Christmas television specials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep; they're aren't WP:OR or WP:NPOV; they're simple lists. They don't duplicate Christmas in the media; in fact, they're basically subarticles of that article, and so linked to in CITM. Sometimes, Wikipedia needs simple lists, and these are good examples of those.--Prosfilaes 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is effectively an appendix to Christmas in the media, which references it rather than containing its own long list. The same goes for the Christmas specials which, while being more tedious and mundane, are referenced in the same way. Both lists could use some pruning but deletion is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whatever the outcome, get rid of "Category 2", films where Christmas is incidental. Clarityfiend 22:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's irrelevant to the AfD; changes to the article should be discussed on the article talk page.--Prosfilaes 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category 2 would, perhaps, have insufficient justification as a separate article. However, it provides a place to put films that might otherwise lead to disputes over inclusion in the Category 1 list.--Hjal 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete; per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Thinboy00 @20, i.e. 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum In addition to my comment, the article also fails to indicate why these particular items are notable, or even to assert their notability. It only asserts the notability of Christmas films as a genre. --Thinboy00 @22, i.e. 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is WP:NOTINHERITED relevant here? We can assume that the films are notable because most of them have articles that haven't been deleted. Usually individual sentences in an article are not called on to justify their notability at this level.--Prosfilaes 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an absolutely useful index of items. jengod 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden above. Rray (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. See previous Keep comments. --Marhawkman (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. They are both tightly focused and a theme of interest to people, thus the subject of the list is notable and the data is not indiscriminate. This is a fairly good case of a list article being appropriate and useful for grouping and organizing articles here. Wikidemo (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is fun and very informative. Angie Y. (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not the same as Christmas in the media. This article is a list of Christmas films. Christmas in the media is an explanation of how Christmas is in the media, as the name implies. List of Christmas films is more of an extension to Chrismas in the media. It used to be "Christmas movies" but is now more correctly named. I believe this article needs improvement though. And I will definantley work on it. I do like the "Category 2" section though, but I don't believe it's necessary, I want it but I can let it go, it's a bit off topic. Perhaps seperated them? But I don't like the "Made for TV Christmas Movies", duplicate information of List of Christmas television specials. I will make suggestions in the discussion page. If you absolutley must delete this article, my last request would be that we create a category for them and place every movie into the category, but I do believe this article is necessary, and I will really try too keep it an efficient article, I really want it to stay. Wuffyz (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I think all films directly associated with Christmas should be in this article. Not just ones that are "of note". But everyone possible Wuffyz (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball or Speedy Keep per obvious consensus. --Thinboy00 @163, i.e. 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azkadellia[edit]

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

Created page for a fictional character from the new Tin Man (TV miniseries) that is completely unnotable and total plot regurgitation. Completely unnecessary POV fork. Collectonian 15:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I actually agree with everything the nominator said, and normally would vote delete, but the Afd tag was placed after the author had posted an under construction tag, and the article had existed for less than an hour when tagged. I actually encourage the author to look long and hard at editing the the Tin Man article (currently semi-protected), because I think it will be difficult to create a separate article that survives. Xymmax 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the main reason this article was created is as a POV fork because multiple editors already said that discussion of any ties to the Wizard of Oz should go in production details and must be cited, instead of being viewer/editor guesses in the character sections. However, giving the benefit of the doubt, the editor who made it seems extremely inexperienced and may simply have not realized that character articles are strongly discouraged. He also first made Azkadellia the Sorceress which now redirects to Azkadellia (and is the main reason I didn't just redirect back to Tin Man, as I believe double redirects are considered bad?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is just that Azkadellia is arguably the only main character who is not a clearly identifiable analogue of a Wizard of Oz character (in which case I agree that the material should go under "modern versions" of the existing page for the book character). Having read some of the rationale for reversion of "unsourced" associations between the Wizard of Oz and Tin Man, I would aver that it will be straightforward in the long run to get citations. In answer to Xymmax, I have read the Talk page for Tin Man, and I would say that if we are all waiting for the writers and Sci-Fi to make a definitive statement about parallels, we're naturally not going to get an assertion that everything is completely deriviative, but that there are many credible published reviews (modulo Wikipedia policy) that treat this subject. As for the redirect, if by "double" redirects you mean transitive ones (Tin Man to Azkadellia to Azkadellia the Sorceress), I would be happy to "flatten" all transitive redirects to go directly to the character page. — Banazir 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, by double I meant going from Azkadellia the Sorceress to Azkadellia to Tin Man. Individual character articles are not encouraged nor generally notable (see WP:FICT). It has already been said that any SOURCED parallels between the films goes in the production details, particularly when Sci-Fi and RHI have already stated quite clearly that they have mostly only made allusions to the origin, not direct parallels or direct derivatives. Either way, any such discussion goes in the main article, and your creating this subarticle just to try to put it in, despite what is appropriate per both of the MOS that apply to this film and what more experienced editors have told you, is not appropriate. Collectonian 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So noted regarding the cycle of redirection; if consensus is that cycles such as that one are bad, that is easily corrected. I would submit (cf. WP:FICT) that "technical reasons (such as length or style)" would pertain here, especially organizational aspects of style. There is a lot of information about this character that would clutter up a list-format section of a miniseries page. Furthermore, I think that this page serves as a bridge between the miniseries page and that of a tangentially related character from the book and film - one that is, by contrast, not needed for the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion. As for the fact that a work's "writers have already stated" that their re-imagining is "inspired by" and not "direct derivatives of" a work: I prefer to go by the entire body of available critical analysis (in this case, primarily consisting of professional reviews) rather than the word of the principal authors alone. Also as Xymmax indicated, I just created this page an hour ago and have not had time to collect such sourced analyses that are not just about parallels. More important, to finish actually constructing the page as the Under Construction tag indicates, I would add more material from interviews and regarding critical reception, which is not all out in print yet. I would ask for time to do so, but if other editors concur that this page should be deleted in the interim, that's certainly acceptable to me. — Banazir 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If no sources are found over the next few days, then the article must be deleted until sources materialize. AnteaterZot 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and done: I've added two cited sources now, and will add more later. — Banazir (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are eight, including two press releases (from Sci Fi Wire), two press videos (from Sci Fi Pulse) with interviews, and four independent reviews including one single-part plot synopsis, two whole-series reviews, and one technical review of the CG creatures (winged monkeys or mobats). — Banazir (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, now that the film is over, it is now clear that there was no intention to make the characters "clearly identifiable analogues" of the Wizard of Oz story, but stand alone characters in a future "what happened after" type thing. As I figured from the beginning, DG is NOT Dorothy Gale, nor are any of the others the book equivalents, but the future friends she makes along the way. It is reminiscent of her ancestor's journey, but not the same and not meant to be. As such, all characters should be covered properly in the film's article. The Az article is still nothing but plot regurgitation that belongs in the main article, so I stand by my nomination. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - have you actually looked at my recent edits? I've already corrected those points. Furthermore, it is unarguable fact that characters in the series referred to the old woman in the cave as "the wicked witch", "the Evil Witch of the Dark", etc. Most important, I am collecting citations for various sources (reviews of the series) that document critical reception of Azkadellia. In short, the article is about Azkadellia, and its notability and relevance should not (and does not) depend on that of the Wicked Witch of the West. — Banazir (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many pop culture items (The Banana Splits, anyone?) have Wiki entries whether they meet the gold standard, or not. Those interested in these actors, in the network's productions, in adaptations of Baum's work, and in the genre may wish to revisit the information in this entry.-55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.209.203 (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the page because I thought that the notability of this main antagonist character was coeval with that of the entire TV miniseries. Now that the series has fully aired, I have corrected, fact-checked, clarified and cited information on parallels. I have used as primary sources articles from Sci Fi and reviews (such as from TV Guide). — Banazir (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, I am not seeking to assert any parallels other than what Sci Fi itself documents, and I have no wish to somehow slip any OR on parallels in "under the radar". If the article goes against a general stylistic guideline specifying that comparisons betwen TWOO and Tin Man belong in either article, or that character parallels belong in a comparison page, then I'm happy to hold all my edits and incorporate the (sourced) material in those pages. I do not, however, agree with any general dogmatic prohibition on forking of character pages from works of popular fiction. IMO, WP:FICT gives enough latitude to allow pages for central characters of a film, miniseries, or book that already has its own page.
Similarly, as the most vocal critics of comparison of Tin Man and TWOO have themselves said, it's not a moratorium or general ban that they seek, just proper sourcing. I agree there should be no such suppressive measure. Here is my position, for the record: I don't feel that a sourced disclaimer by the author of a work regarding derivative nature invalidates comparisons. Current reviews in print both praise and criticize Tin Man for its departures, and they also critique parallels, particularly how Tin Man adapts character concepts from TWOO. My view is that you can't have a complete critical review of a re-imagining without both. Moreover, the discussion here indicates no general consensus that I can see regarding inferences that are being characterized as original research cf. WP:OR.
Contrary to some claims, a July preview of Tin Man at Sci Fi Wire (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=42220, cited in the primary article and this one) flatly refers to Azkadellia as "the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West". We can discuss whether this is accurate in light of the series itself, but it is a direct assertion in an article from the producer's news service - essentially a press release.
I accept that the documentation that forms the current version of the page recaps some plot information that could be put into the main page, but I think the page already contains enough character-specific material, by volume, that it would be unwieldy to try to cram it all back in.
— Banazir (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one section, portrayal & criticism, which is not pure plot regurgitation and it belongs in the main article as part of the reaction section. Even the plot stuff could go in the main article as I see no one has still bothered to finish the sections for parts 2 & 3. There is NOTHING in this article that establishes notability apart from the film, and nit does not need to be separate from the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree that most of the plot details can, and should, be reabsorbed into the Part 2 and 3 plot sections for Tin Man. Critical reception of Tin Man as a whole, however, is just that - it is to be distinguished from the critical reception of the character of Azkadellia. The latter has been written about quite a bit now, and IMO warrants its own section within a character page. More important, though, is the organizational rationale for any character page for a recent work of popular fiction: if the character is notable in its originality, portrayal, or even departure from a better-known counterpart (in the case of re-imaginings), then a standalone page is worth having. As a commentator (74.227.6.174) noted below, Azkadellia is distinguishable from other Tin Man characters precisely because of this degree of departure. If you adhere to a dogmatic view that there should be no character pages for pop fiction or miniseries, period, then we will have to agree to disagree. — Banazir (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever actually looked at the Film and/or TV MOS? Or the Fiction MOS in general? Character pages are generally not appropriate and not necessary, especially for a character that appears in only a single film. Critial reviews and what not of Az would certainly be appropriate in the character section or as part of the over all view of the film (individual performance critics are just as relevant to the film as a whole). You have yet to establish any real notability from the character apart from the film, nor explained why you feel it doesn't belong in the Tin Man article. The Tin Man article certainly isn't excessive in side, in fact its rather pathetic looking (and considering its new, jumping to a sub article just seems excessive to me). AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:MOS and several of the Wikipedia essays such as WP:FICT that you cite, and that's it. Like Rickyrab in the Tin Man discussion page thread on character pages, I would appreciate a link. FWIW, I do agree that the Tin Man article is presently pathetic-looking, but it's a matter of fleshing out the Part 2 and 3 summaries and then moving on to production details, critical reception and analyses, and handling the in-references as we (you, I, and everyone else) see fit. I don't see the barely-above-stub level status of the page persisting more than another week or two, and we can take that as a statement of commitment to add content if there's any worry that I am prognosticating. — Banazir (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Film MOS and TV MOS. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I went and looked those up as well as the Fiction MOS and the MOS for television episodes. Banazir (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Azkadellia is, arguably, the best reason to watch Tin Man. And considering the amount of backstory and overall information that goes into the character, there needs to be a separate page for her, since there's obviously far more information than could be condensed into a paragraph or two on the Tin man page. And as was mentioned before, while all the other characters are pretty much straight analogues to their WWOO counterparts, the Azkadellia character is a huge departure, and deserves to be covered a little more in-depth. 74.227.6.174 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the characters are straight analogues of the WWOO "counterparts" nor were they intended to be. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Collectonian, you can keep stomping on the words "analogues" and "counterparts" as much as you like, but it won't erase the fact that Sci Fi itself refers to Azkadellia as "the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West" in their press release, her portrayer (Kathleen Robertson) refers to her role as that of "an iconic villainess", etc. Neither I nor anyone else I see editing the Tin Man or Azkadellia pages is asserting that they are straight analogues in the sense of a remake. Yes, Tin Man is a re-imagining in the sense that the 2003 Battlestar Galactica TV series is a re-imagining of the original 1978/1980 series. "Counterpart" is not a strict technical term and IMO should not be restricted, neither is documenting the interpretations of the actors, principal creators (writers), and professional reviewers of the work unsourced guesswork. — Banazir (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Wikipedia is about information, and it's about providing information to those who want it. Someone might be interested in learning more about Az, so they'd go to trusty Wikipedia to learn more about her. Let us not fail the public by deleting information. Any information does not hurt Wikipedia, and only increases our dependability to those who use it. If this page was merely a stub or something, then we might have reason to delete it, but someone obviously put a lot of hard work into this very in-depth page and it should be kept up. I realize that Wikipedia has become really anal about this lately, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that our business here is to provide information. This page certainly does that in a very professional manner. --Promus Kaa (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Xymmax above; Arguably, characters from Tin Man, being a singular work, would not ordinarily be worth their own entries, as opposed to a single page that deals with all the characters. But given the "under construction" banner, I'd like to see what comes of the page first. If it merely echoes the WP:ILIKEIT mindset that is echoed in many of the responses here, then I'd vote for deletion. If it can be truly fleshed out, then it would be worth keeping, IMO. --Mhking (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I would be open to the idea of a character page with all of the characters and just a section for Azkadellia, my feeling is that there's a rather well-defined line between "strongly inspired by" (cf. Raw and Glitch; for all their backstories and talents, they are played rather archetypically) versus "complete re-imagining of" or "new twist on". I think Az falls on the "complete departure" side of the line. I'm certainly open to suggestions as to what you consider "fleshing out". My plan is to keep adding material on the sources that inspired her creators - from their interviews and critical reviews that have come out and that I just haven't had time to collect yet (and that perhaps other editors will add). Any other ideas? — Banazir (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The jury seems to still be out on side-by-side comparisons of Tin Man and WWOO characters; I'm happy to go with consensus either way, but I don't relish arguing or wrangling over every point of observation or direct inference. That way lies the flip side of the coin, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Some editor eschew trivia sections in works of fiction as matter of course, and similarly, some are automatically going to oppose any character page of a new series or any comparative review of a re-imagining as being inappropriate (premature, OR, POV, etc.). — Banazir (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is detailed and informative (perfect for wikipedia). And the subject is a main character within the miniseries. -- Voldemore (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had read WP:OR and WP:RS before, and I disagree that the press releases fail a reliability test, but I'm open to criticism on the TV Guide and other television media reviews. I would never compare Azkadellia to James Kirk or Pooh, but perhaps Rick Deckard or Gaston might be apt analogies (single film, central character). OTOH, if someone makes a page of Tin Man characters and suggested merging this article with it cf. Rose DeWitt Bukater into the list of Titanic characters, I personally would be glad to go along with that, as Xymmax suggested up at the top of this AfD discussion. As for WP:NOT#PLOT, I agree that this page needs some work there, too, and that a lot of summary information ought to be merged back into the main series article. These things take some time. — Banazir (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, my reason for having this article is as a repository of story-external information about the character: the creative process of adapting the iconic, archetypal Wicked Witch from TWOO; the actors' and writers' views on her portrayal in this series; her critical reception (and, say, any awards won, though those decisions are still some time off in the future). I do feel strongly that simply merging Az back into Tin Man itself would lose a lot of information, or at the least, create an organizational and stylistic headache, since the amount of information that would go into the (currently stub-class) series page, even after plot material were migrated over, would be a significant fraction of what is there now. Pursuant to WP:FICT, I would cite the "technical reasons" it mentions as possible exceptions to a doctrine of "no character pages for single works of fiction". We're talking about a 3-part miniseries: everything from a character photo to costumes to articles on merchandising, etc. This material is already out there, and what's left to do is to sift through it to assess notability. — Banazir (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having said why I made this page, I should also say that for the record, I think that a careful comparison with the Wicked Witch from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is in order. It's not why I forked the page, but since that issue has become a matter of some debate on the Tin Man discussion page, I think it's apt to point out that a) clearly Azkadellia is a standalone character not wholly derivative of the WWoTW (a point in favor of keeping this article rather than merging it into Wicked Witch) and b) clearly the allusion to that same character via her possessor is strong, both visually and in plot and dialogue homages ("wow, she melted!"). I'd spell it all out, but some of this lacks for sources and would be OR if we just wrote it into the article. It's no stretch to see that some (read: enough) of this information has already been supplied by the writers and cast in interviews and just needs sourcing, while more of it (beyond the essential material we already have) will materialize in the coming months as often happens with films and TV miniseries. We are not waiting for sources that may or may not get published, but collecting sources that exist and checking them for authoritativeness. — Banazir (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I reviewed "A Touch More Evil", and in a scene that occurs after Cain shoots Zora, Az clearly has eight tattoos, four on each side, and the center one (apparently corresponding to Zora) is gone. Presumably there were originally nine (on the front side of her body, at least), but I haven't seen a frame where all nine are visible. Her costumes tend to hide the two on her shoulders. Thanks for spotting this. — Banazir (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part of an ongoing long-term pattern of hoax and sneaky vandalism by Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), who has used several other accounts. Uncle G 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren "Two Sheds" Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Darren "Two Sheds" Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Initially tagged as a speedy deletion, but I declined since this does make an attempt to assert notability, and to cite references. However, the links provided don't seem to describe the subject non-trivially/independently and may have issues with reliability (one, for example, is a Tripod site). Still, there does seem to be a possibility that the subject is in fact notable, but, if so, better sources will be needed to substantiate that. — TKD::Talk 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The notability assertion is not enough to make this fighter notable. Plus, this article has been deleted multiple times already under different names. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 14:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - must we really go through the whole AfD process every time a non-notable article makes a claim to notability that can trivially be seen to be false? Mayalld 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The threshold for speedy deletion criterion A7 is, in fact, making a claim of importance and significance. I do not think that this person meets WP:BIO based on evidence at the moment, but I also was uncomfortable with speedying. I'm duly aware of the problems of process for process' sake, but I do think that that it's worthwhile to settle this matter once and for all. An AfD delete result does mean that future re-creations will be able to be speedily deleted under criterion G4, unless they address the concerns that led to deletion. — TKD::Talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fully accepted. It was more of a general grumble about speedy being too restrictive Mayalld
  • Its only been deleted because people are editing it!! also they are changing the name, there is proof of notability see references, also valhalla belt... The original was called Darren Jackson Cage fighter some one has changed its name, is that the Authors fault !!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two more or less duplicate copies of the same article were created under different titles. I redirected one to the other and sent the remaining one here for a discussion.I have not touched the content of the article proper. — TKD::Talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Mayalld. —ScouterSig 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (keep) from valboy1672 I can verify notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valboy1672 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — Valboy1672 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • (keep) I can verify notable do not remove Valboy1672 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)valboy1672 user:valboy1672[reply]
    • Then please provide multiple independent reliable sources that discuss this person non-trivially. — TKD::Talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. Your opinion was already made known. — TKD::Talk 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (keep) Confirm is notable check reference, I agree with TKD and valboy1672DiamonddannyboyDianmonddannyboy —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    • I think that you misunderstand me. I didn't outright speedily delete the article, but that doesn't mean that I want to ultimately keep it, at least not in its current form. I brought this to a discussion because I did not want to unilaterally delete it. However, we need multiple reliable independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. The onus is on those wishing to keep the article to provide these sources for verifiability. — TKD::Talk 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Found a couple of google hits to validate that there actually is a fighter by the name of Darren Jackson, but he doesn't appear to have done much. The article title is, of course, a reference to a Monty Python sketch. PKT 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear claim to notability.--Prosfilaes 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I have spent considerable time looking for sources for this article but the subject is nowhere close to being notable. The article has been deleted approximately eight times under assorted entries. The author sought advice from me on how to keep it, hence my searching and have found nothing remotely verifiable or reilable on him. Does not meet WP:BIO. The ridiculous, seemingly random, unverified nicknames in the subject title does nothing to give the impression of a serious article. Hammer1980·talk 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The links provided merely prove that this person exists and that they have fought, which is insufficient to establish notability - also some of the links are obviously self-promotional. --carelesshx talk 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Valboy1672 is a new account created today that has jumped in to the fray here, and seems to share a connection via a Kent (UK) martial arts club. I suspect a sock of User:Diamonddannyboy. Alsp the now banned creator of this article User:Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj seems to have popped up just to do Diamond's bidding Mayalld 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I agree with your point of view, I am the one who reported User:Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj, and it was for activities totally unrelated to the Darren Jackson article. This person kept removing CSD tags from various articles for no valid reason and regardless of topic or author. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable fighter. Looking very snowy in here. --Cyrus Andiron 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much of the content of this article has been copied word for word from Geoff Thompson. Hammer1980·talk 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys, will you take a look at the edit history of an article on another Darren Jackson? We got a possible hoax here. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment) I wrote the article on Darren Jackson Martial Artist, someone has changed it to 2two sheds" whats that about, I have wrote on the notable martial artist and use web content, I have wrote on wikepedia a few times before, I thought this was a talk board not a bitch board guys come on!! I have no conection with you valboy. Only that you may live in the uk and follow martial arts.

The orignal article had no content taken from the Geoff Thompson page, again its been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili Imports[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for a non-notable corporation, mostly written and edited by a representative of that company Malangali 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on lack of notability alone. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, the company doesn't seem to be notable. Xymmax 13:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the grounds of corporate puff for an organisation with no demonstrated notability. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but not to be kept in present form—The consensus is that the article needs serious changes in tone and content. The article will be so-tagged. I believe common practice is that if the issues are not addressed within a reasonable time (probably a month or so), then it can be brought back here for re-evaluation taking into account lack of change in the article since last AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Bossons[edit]

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

Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist

On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt to address the issues for which the article has been tagged, despite plenty of time. I also sense that the article was written by people who were uncertain of the subject's notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dont see notability here. But I'm happy to be proven wrong... Marcus22 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the subject is notable enough, but the article does need some work re referencing and general tone. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am sorry to say, never heard of her, even whether its in or out of S-o-T? Until this article, I have never heard of her. Not to mention about the notability issues as there are 656 ghits about her and all of this are official sites, mirror sites of wikipedia, online auctions and everything that has to do with Moorcraft and nothing else. Not to mention these tag has sat there since June, 6 months passed has passed since then and still nothing, why not delete. Willirennen 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has recieved significant coverage: [31]. Epbr123 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if the article was to be kept, then whatever is tagged on the page should be dealt with ASAP as within a month, otherwise a deletion would be best to deal with this issues.Willirennen (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbiased Advisor[edit]

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

Non notable book. Hammer1980·talk 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and borderline advert. thisisace (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as promotional material (i.e., spam) for non-notable subject. Pastordavid (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient notability, book is for sale at Amazon, but otherwise I can't see where secondary sources have taken an interest. Xymmax 15:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like spam, and notability not established. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. Bearian 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Videos[edit]

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

Delete non-notable series of amateur videos. Unreferenced Mayalld 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unreferenced, non-notable, looks like it was made up in school one day. or possible over a number of days, to be fair. still non-notable tho. tomasz. 12:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons as tomasz. above. --DAJF 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. G4 and A7 (web). Maybe even salt. I can't tell, obviously, whether it's a copy of the originally deleted page as I am not an admin, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of inclusion anyway.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and Salt it this time. Typical kids-playing-with-a-camcorder article, already deleted once through AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although interestingly, the last AfD was over two years ago - which is a long period of time in Wikipedia terms.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, although the current version does nothing to address the issues for which it was deleted (notability and verfiability). I'm not a big fan of rerunning AfDs simply because we can. Besides, our inclusion standards have tightened up considerably since then, so extremely few things deletable by our 2005 stardards would be keepable today. If anything, the fact that nothing significantly new has happened in the previous two years suggests our decision then was spot-on: that this is unverifiable, unreferencable, utterly non-notable and completely unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sorely tempted to speedy as a G4, but suspected that it would keep getting recreated and that somebody would cry foul for relying on an old AfD, etc. etc. Mayalld 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; my frustration when reading this article is that it should say up front who these people are and where the videos have been displayed. For example, House (TV series) makes it clear up front that it's an American TV series created by David Shore, debuting on FOX Network and winning the Emmy and Peabody awards. If this article were to say that they had played on BBC 2 (or whatever TV channel or conference or film festival) and won some sort of award, no matter how minor, then at least those would be some sort of claim of notability. Right now, I don't know that the films have ever been shown at any place that has any sort of standards beyond "it's not porn".--Prosfilaes 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, rereading the article, I did notice that it claimed that it was released on a DVD box-set. That could be something, if it wasn't self-published.--Prosfilaes 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well how about just snowball delete?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax Financial Holdings[edit]

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

Delete or Stub Longstanding stub article has been rapidly grown into a blatant corporate brochure for the company. Several editors seem to have WP:COI issues. Mayalld 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Why have you set this article for deletion? The Wikipedia entry for Fairfax had been created about 3 years ago (Aug.13, 2004). Up'till now, the article sparsely described the company. After over 3 years, the article has gotten finally extended with lots of reference links, and now someone is suggesting it for deletion. I don't understand Wikipedia anymore. I'm an independent Wikipedia reader and I think that all information about this company has been compiled from publicly available sources on the internet, like S.E.C. EDGAR files, newspaper and magazine articles. IMHO, it's a shame to put this article for deletion. Please feel free to google every references about this company. If you can do it better, please feel free to make suggestions ? (IntrinsicV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntrinsicV (talk • contribs) 12:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've put it up because there has been a suspicious growth from a stub into an article that simply regurgitates company PR material. I am ambivalent as to whether we (1) return it to a stub, (2) edit the PR speak out to make it a sensible article (3) delete it. If the article gets improved, I'll change my vote to keep Mayalld 12:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I totally agree with your ambivalent character. I think the article should be edited (2), to make it more objective and sensible. Return it to an imperfect(1) or to delete it(3) makes no sense, and should NOT be done, because this wouldn't serve most of us readers and what makes Wikipedia's profoundness. Since I'm a novice about this, I'm a little afraid that I destroy the article main substance. I guess it makes sense that I deleted most of the Corporate Values area. I like to hear more suggestions how this article can become a more objective article. All suggestions are appreciated for a novice editor ? IntrinsicV 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It meets WP:CORP. Take a look at the "Special note: advertising and promotion" section. I don't think #1 and #2 have been done yet. --YUL89YYZ 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article I also think it meets WP:CORP. I guess, that the article mostly reflects an unbiased history from publicly available sources (S.E.C. files and newspaper articles). By the way, the suggested opinion that this article carries PR speak is righless, because this company shuns any publicity and never has done any PR, it doesn't even have a PR department. We shouldn't be overanxious, because it seems that some Wiki administrator's are unilluminated and clueless about the history of this company. This article only serves us readers. So anyone who can do it better should rewrite the article and make it an even more truly unprejudiced article. Maybe someone can do it better. I feel sometimes totally helpless. Regards,IntrinsicV 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to satisfy notability criteria. Any content perceived as advertising can easily be removed. --DAJF 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable assets under the wing and thousands of employees but the article could do with some NPOV cutting and more independent citations. Gwen Gale 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be a notable business, although the executive biographies are a bit fulsome, and the entire text seems to have NPOV issues. At least it's written in reasonably good English rather than managementese. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The executive biographies of Prem Watsa and Francis Chou are a crucial part of this company, like Bill Gates at Microsoft, and Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway. Prem Watsa is under the top 100 Canadian business leaders with a personal wealth of at least $500 million (CAD) and co-founder Francis Chou runs a $1 billion (CAD) dollar mutual fund group. Both shun any publicity, --no press--, thus they both live a life like Yoda on Dagobah, very reclusive. While perhaps 80% of money managers on Wall Street can't beat the market over long term time periods, yet this outstanding duo of Watsa and Chou have both done it consistently. They are probably in the top 1% league of money managers that have beaten the markets (in the last 21 years, since founding, +24%p.a. growth in book value per share). The history of Fairfax, Hamblin Watsa Investment Council, Prem Watsa and Francis Chou is coherent. We would undermine a vital part of the history of Fairfax for the unaware reader if we leave someting out.IntrinsicV 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, they may well be notable themselves - put their bios into separate pages Mayalld 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At your request, I have added a Prem Watsa stub to Wikipedia.--IntrinsicV 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm nowhere connected with the company, but I feel it is a really bad practice to just keep marking articles for deletion at whim. Wikipedia is for everyone and just for anti-coporate anarchists. If you feel it is a corporate PR stuff, people should work to edit the contents or remove most of the contentious/POV elements. Just deleting the work of someone at whim is never a good practice. I will vote to edit and rewrite from a Neutral POV. Balajiviswanathan 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When adding new comments, please add a new bullet, rather than editing a previous comment Mayalld 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep uhhh what the **** people if it has a New York stock ticker then there damn well better be an article about the company. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Up'till now the random consensus of everbody here is for "Keep"! So I suggest that our venerated Wikipidia administrator would please have the courage to highlight his criticised sentences from the article (copy and paste them to this thread), so we novice readers can understand his points. Maybe he can also show us how we should rewrite the article to make it more sensible without destroying the coherent content. For Disclosure: I'm an independent Wikipedia reader with no associations to the above mentioned company. I don't know anybody from this company nor have I ever worked for this company, and I don't even live in Canada where this company is incorporated. I think that everything that has been gathered and mentioned in this article on this company is from publicly available sources from the internet. It is hard to get a Wikipidia administrator to understand something if his living depends on him not understanding it, and IMHO that's the inconvenient truth. Every fact is verifiable by using an adequate search string on Google. So everybody who thinks that he or she can do a better job, it's fine with me. He or she should put his hands where his or her mouth is, and rewrite the article. And that somebody should pay attention that the coherent knowledge on this company isn't getting lost. So, a sensible and objective article about this company is undeniable insightful. Keep! Respectfully Yours, a novice Wikipedia user.IntrinsicV 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article on a publicly quoted company with over 8000 employess and nearly $7 billion annual revenue, and has just been expanded from a stub into a well sourced encyclopedic article. How can that be twisted into a reason for deletion? Phil Bridger 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not the place to bring cleanup issues on articles whose topics do meet our inclusion guidelines. If there are NPOV problems, tag it for NPOV or clean it up yourself — but the topic does meet WP:CORP, and independent sources are present. Cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see how some might interpret certain aspects as too subjective, so as someone said, mark them as such and clean them up. Please don't delete it. Look at the clearly-encyclopedic topic on Pan Am World Airways. Surely we don't have to wait for a company to go out of business before we can read about it without suspicion of conflicts of interest. As an investor it's difficult to find unbiased objective research on the internet. The company itself can't provide it, and who is more objective and reliable than Wikipedia? You set the standard of reliability because of the public opportunity to object and provide alternative points of view. This is a valuable service to the internet world and should be maintained and managed with the same high standards as any other potentially controversial topic. Sweeper Bob (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Clearly notable and well-referenced. AFD is evil, let's speedy this and tag for clean-up. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For Disclosure: Since our highly respected administrator hasn't come up with further opinions. I have even restored the coherent and interesting trivia stuff about this company. It's up to other Wiki users to freely edit it. I also suggest that our venerated Wikipedia administrator does some homework, takes the challenge and verifies the facts recited in this article. IntrinsicV (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should never have been listed for deletion, in my view. Google News reveals multiple news hits. A multi-billion dollar corporation and industry leader (in Canada) that more than meets WP:CORP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Mariotti[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from the article as it stands, the only thing which might establish this person’s notability in Wikipedia’s sense is the un-named and unreferenced “widely published paper discussing the political intervention in Italian media, particularly that of former Primer Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”

Yet a Google search for ‘"Marina Mariotti" berlusconi’ produces only two hits: one to this article and one to a 9Mb pdf which may, or may not, refer to the paper or, indeed, to the same Mariotti. (I didn’t think the download worthwhile.) Apparently not a widely-discussed paper. I think that the article as it stands should be deleted, just as its predecessor was, and that it should only be re-created if very clear notability can be established from the start. —Ian Spackman 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is worth noting that:

  • A previous version of the article stated that ‘Martina is engaged to Canadian Urban Planner, Darcy Roszell, and together they live in the city of Empoli.’ (I removed this sentence as unencyclopledic trivia.)
  • The article’s author is called user:Droszell
  • He [or she] previously created an article on Darcy roszell (sic), which was speedily deleted (log) on grounds of non-notability.
  • Delete. Does not establish notability. --DAJF 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks non-notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without any problem. It's self-boasting crap. --Attilios 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article without any substantial claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish the notability of the subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have tried locating her on the websites of the University of Pisa, but failed to fina anything. This does not mean she's not somewhere there (my Italian is less than rudimentary, I admit), but in any case there is no obvious mention. Even a Google search for "Martina Mariotti" only gives few hits and nothing that seems to be related to this article (which is, in fact, the first result to pop up). --Crusio 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete If she were a professor at Pisa, she would have published more than one paper. Unless something can be fond to substantiate her record, I can not see keeping the article. The author has been notified; let's see if he finds anything. DGG (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne (Jo) Bradford[edit]

Joanne (Jo) Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly non-notable, reads like an advert. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Should had been placed on CSD for the pure and simple fact, non-notable artist (and no hint of notability, especially on google), plus very poorly put together. Willirennen 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable. Looks like a copyvio from a directory. Johnbod 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability not established through cited sources; rather, it is a copy and paste from a specialty "Who's Who in X"-type directory. Not all Who's Whos are equally encyclopedic, as some are vanity listings. -- Banazir (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify which criteria is use for this article. It contains point of views which are potentially WP:OR and non-neutral. So it is better to not write about subject. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of FA Cup giant-killings[edit]

Previous AFD
List of FA Cup giant-killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The criteria used to describe what a giant-killing constitutes is inherently original research and, per a recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL there's quite a strong consensus for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - defining giant killin for the purposes of the list is OR. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the entertainment value, it is clearly original research and therefore doesn't belong in this encyclopedia as written. To be kept, we'd need independent references that list the same set of matches, the same inclusion criteria, the same nomenclature ("giant-killings"), etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. Since no-one can define giant-killing in any meaningful, concise manner, the list quickly becomes WP:OR. The criteria listed in the article at the moment are one author's opinion of what comprises giant-killing, but the term is used in the press whenever any lower division team beats a higher division one (and that includes upsets among different levels of non-league teams as well). If you include all those, the list becomes unusably large (at my best guess would be nearly 100 games a season!) The concept is therefore notable, but I can't define it in a way that would give us a usable article. - fchd (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that hits the nail on the head - the concept is notable but the definition is inherently subjective until Collins/Webster/etc define "giant-killer" within this context. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just looked in my Collins English Dictionary and the entry for "giant killer" is "n. a person, sports team, etc., that defeats an apparently superior opponent". - fchd (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's great! So how can we now make "apparently" NPOV?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • By providing reliable sources for the entries. If a result has multiple references describing it as a giant killing it is, otherwise it does not go on the list. It is not individual editors place to define criteria but the world at large. Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine. Provide reliable sources for each entry. The criteria are clearly defined in the lead. They're not cited. Whose criteria are they? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I've commented at the football WikiProject talk page, this is irretrievably OR. Some material could make up a List of FA Cup defeats of league clubs by non-league (or perhaps better worded) but as TRM says, it'd be very hard to devise NPOV NOR wording for this. Shame, but there you go. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria were devised by me and user:Peanut4 to keep the list to a managable size. Furthermore it prevents it being regularly hijacked by supporters of particular teams. I fully accept that those are arbitrary criteria, which I believe to make the best of a bad job. But thats the point - its just my opinion. So it's obvious to me from long discussions on this that the list is never going to meet WP:VERIFY as no two people can agree on what makes a giant killing. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Compact OED gives a person or team that defeats a seemingly much more powerful opponent. Pity, but I don't see how to convert that into neutral non-OR inclusion criteria. Struway2 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to buck the trend and stick my neck out. The list is notable and therefore simple keep. I concede it may well be WP:OR but giant killing does have a dictionary defition. To keep the list manageable, the list needs a criteria, which have been set. As per the previous AfD, it is possible to take WP:OR too far, see the featured list - List of important operas. I also feel that using individual sources woulnd't work, because you then leave it down to an individual journalist. If the Harrogate Advertiser called Harrogate Railway's victory over Harrogate Town a giant-killing, then we would be forced to include it. I'm open to suggestions for verifying the criteria and then putting in any upsets which match those criteria, whether sourced or not, as long as they're fact. If that's not possible, then so be it, but I feel this list is notable enough and want to make it work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much as I hate to argue with you Peanut4 but what would stop me creating "List of FA Cup giant-killings 2" (or similar) with my own criteria like "any team beaten by any other team (say) three tiers below them"? As per discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, Chasetown beat Port Vale which is a five division difference. That's about as giant killing it gets. Your giant is only as big as you are short. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately I have to admit I do agree with most of what you say (if not all). I'm just trying my hardest to keep a list which others have even admitted is notable enough. Though I did vote delete last time round!! However, I'm struggling to find a decent enough definition for giant-killing, other than David v Goliath and that even the BBC call some non-league team beating a bad Lge Two team is giant-killing, and even games in the Football League Trophy can be giant-killing! I will keep trying. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course games in the FLT can be giant-killing, so can they in the FA Trophy, FA Vase, any competition that brings together teams from different levels. - fchd (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I was only being sarcastic about a derided competition which only has two division's worth of clubs. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant delete. I think the only way around this would be to set up some form of arbitrary criterion (e.g., "List of FA Cup wins by teams over opponents two or more flights higher in the English league system"), which is getting to be pretty wordy and, as I said, arbitrary. Given that my old home town has a proud record of such wins (and has just won through to the fourth round against higher placed opposition), I'm reluctant, but sadly in its present form the article probably has to go. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't this the same as what we call an "upset" in American sports? Something like the Dolphins beating the Patriots? There's at least one source, a page that documents "shocks", and I imagine that this is recorded in printed sources as well. People have been fascinated by an unexpected defeat by a lesser opponent since the day that David met Goliath. Mandsford (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment isn't "arbitrary criterion" equivalent to "original research" really? Why is one arbitrary criterion more or less relevant than another? The issue here isn't whether or not the list contains shock results, that's a given, the issue is that the title of the article and the author's decision on what constitutes a "giant-killing". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't buy the original research argument, as lists of "giant-killing" are regularly published in the Sky Sports and News of the World football annuals. The article just needs proper sourcing. Catchpole (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we reproduced those lists, though, wouldn't that be copyvio....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so please define what a "giant-killing" constitutes precisely. Do you agree the current criteria are what make a giant killing? And do Sky and the News of the World have the same criteria as this article or even each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own any Sky books so can't speak for them. I own quite a lot of NotW books but I can't check them right now as they're at home, but as I recall they just have a section headed something like "famous shock results" and don't set out any specific criteria..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, while we're at it, why shouldn't Chasetowns win over Port Vale be considered a giant killing? According to the current criteria, because Port Vale aren't in the top two divisions, it can't be listed. There's a five-division discrepancy between the two teams. That's about as "giant-killing" as it gets. But it's not going to make the list. Unless we add/modify the criteria. Which is precisely the problem with the list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

To be honest I don't think it's possible to define giant-killing. Like I said above, the BBC cast giant-killing on even non-league teams beating other non-league teams and also Bury beating Leeds in the Football League Trophy. Yet one FA Cup story I found for Third Round day was headlined "FA Cup reaches giant-killing stage" with the implied suggestion that only teams from the top two divisions can be giant-killed. As much as I want to keep this, I reckon it's only a delete (because of WP:OR reasons and problems with sourcing the definition) or create a new entry, such as List of non-league teams beating league teams in the FA Cup or List of top tier sides beaten by lower league opposition in the FA Cup - both unwieldy titles. Peanut4 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria and apply it based on the sources available and possibly move the article to a more appropriate name. Catchpole (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria..." thats that first big problem. "...the sources available ..." that's the second problem with this list - there are no reliable sources. In the current state the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of British Football (ed. Cox, Russell, Vamplew, 2002 ISBN 0714682306) has a six page section on 'Giant killers', complete with sources and match descriptions. Catchpole (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And reprinting it here would be a copyvio. Do they mention their criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can read it starting here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main sources appears to be a book written by Geoff Tibballs entitled "FA Cup Giant Killers", I've added this to the article as a good source. Catchpole (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that source hasn't been used in the selection of matches here has it? Does it have the same criteria which have been arbitrarily selected here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have the 1996 NOTW annual about me, which has a giant-killing list. It doesn't say, and I can't tell at quick glance without knowing what divisions the clubs were in at the time, what criteria they adopt. It names about 75 results in the ten years up to 1996, about 30 in the previous ten years, and about another 30 in the whole preceding history of the FA Cup. Which to me looks pretty recentist, unless shock results only started happening in the last 30 years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep and move to List of FA Cup upsets; current title is laughably POV. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not even sure about "upsets" - in any match there could be extenuating circumstances where upsets may be expected (if you know what I mean). I think that's still too POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was just a thought. I'd also support Peanut4's suggestion above about specifying a criterion or two. But if we give examples at upset, what's to say there can't be a list of them? --Merovingian (T, C) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get me wrong, it's much better than the current title with these dubious criteria. I believe in its current state the list is untenable, the only reference is poor, hardly a reliable source. I'd look for a list with each match having a citation whereby someone reliable (BBC, Sky, Times, Telegraph) etc have actually described the match as an upset (or similar). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be fine, too. AFAIK, if a sporting event is enough of an upset, somebody in the media will say it and we can reference it. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now we're getting somewhere! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Using the word upset, and sourcing it to the above sources, would make the list very recentist, and also open the list to being potentially large and unmanageable, though I do congratulate the progress being made. My worry would be that such results as Wimbledon-Liverpool 1988 would be classed as an upset, yet they played each other in the league that season and such a win wouldn't create such interest. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←There is precedent for this at Polymath, where every Tom, Dick and Harry's favourite genius used to be inserted on the basis that they once did a chemistry experiment or published a book on sailor's knots or whatever. Now only people cited in RS as a polymath remain listed. However, in this case, it brings its own problems. Sports journalists tend to get a bit excitable. If (say) Fulham of the English Premier League, defeated Man Utd in an FA Cup game, I wouldn't be surprised to find an RS that described it as a "giant-killing" and I would expect to see it reported as an "upset", yet it would not be a notable match and in encyclopedic terms shouldn't be included. Yet how could we exclude it without contravening NPOV? I just think this is unrescuable. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Upset' is far worse than Giant Killing as its even more in the eye of the beholder. Wins by clubs near the bottom of the Premier against the big four are usually described as upsets. With over 700 ties taking place each season that means at least 50 games each season. For the list to have any value it needs to avoid recentism and include only the most notable results. This was the whole point of the current criteria. Its obvious that there is no agreement on the criteria so this is a clear delete for me I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is an oustanding example of a deletion debate. Kudos to everyone involved. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need to keep Wikipedia policies in mind here.
First WP:Verify says that results should be backed against reliable sources. I'm sure we could do that with results currently in the list. But theres also WP:Notability which says: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability" in other words just because journalist X considers a result an upset today doesn't mean it will be remembered five years from now. So those two need to be balanced against each other.
Second WP:NoOriginalResearch. Thatš the problem with the list regardless of how we tinker with it. If we're not going to have a pointless indiscriminate list of 5000 odd results we need criteria. But to cover results which always crop up on the lists those criteria will always be arbitrary e.g. "a three division gap over top flight clubs or a two division gap if they finished in the top six or won the cup the previous season; or a four division gap for lower level clubs; or a one division gap for the final"
Thirdly WP:I like it. Yes it's an interesting list but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Valenciano (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good summing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: WP:Verify. I totally agree, which is why I would rather see the criteria be sourced rather than individual results. That way it avoids one journalist at either the BBC, or a local newspaper, but at any RS, getting carried away with one win. If such verification isn't possible, then the only possible result of this titled entry is delete.
Re: WP:I like it. I think this list suits WP:LIST. It is a structured chronological list, partly as an off shoot of the FA Cup entry, and would be of the giant-killing entry currently on the Requests list. Peanut4 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that who decides which criteria is correct? There's no right answer. There wasn't much response to the question "why Chasetown beating Port Vale (five divisions above them) shouldn't go in this list". The reason why it all went quiet was because I suspect we all know the answer and it's that the criteria will always be subjective, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for an article like this. 192.93.164.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I've given reasons why Chasetown shouldn't be included on umpteen occasions. First - recentism. An identical result when Bedlington beat Colchester who were five levels higher in 1998-9 is largely forgotten. Secondly and most crucially Chasetown is already mentioned in the appropriate section History of the FA Cup and I truly don't believe that a second round win over Port Vale is so notable that it needs to be mentioned twice. Thirdly it comes down to how we define giant killing and I view it to be beating a giant as if we're to include all wins by non-league clubs over level three clubs, the list becomes a bit pointless. Is my POV any more worthy than your POV? I readily accept that it isn't and given the multiple disagreements in sources, thatš why its gotta go. Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chasetown beating Port Vale to me isn't a giant-killing (though I agree it's a relative giant-killing to Port Vale). Chasetown beating Port Vale is a cup upset, and a very substantial one at that. Subtlely changing the article title, as suggested above, changes the goalposts, pardon the pun, a hell of a lot. Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Bizarre. A part-time amateur team beating a professional league club founded in 1876, five divisions above them isn't a giant killing act? Well that's it (all over again) - a subjective choice. Relativity, subjectivity, arbitrary criteria, that's what makes this whole thing wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it all depends on how you define the word 'Giant'. I don't know about you but when people ask me for a giant of English football, Vale aren;t the first club to spring to mind. If they'd been founded in 876 it wouldn't change that one iota. As I say Chasetown are already mentioned in the relative section, why should we duplicate a mention of a win over third level Port Vale but not mention arguably more notable results? The simple question Rambling man, is do you remember the equivalent result in 1999 when Bedlington beat Colchester? If the answer is no, then I rest my case. If the answer is yes, then weŗe still broadly in agreement about the subjectivity of the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it before, the term "giant" in this context is relative. So Chasetown's giant (Port Vale) is Liverpool's minnow. Everything is relative, needs context and will always be dependent on someone's definition. Thus never NPOV, thus delete. BTW I'm the wrong person to ask about Col U since I'm an ITFC/Col U fan (if you can have such a thing) so yes I do! And that's yet another problem. All lists will be infiltrated by the "Oh, but what about X F.C. who once beat Y Rovers in the 2nd round in 1955?" This list can never be resolved satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I totally agree with you Valenciano, which is why I say it's a substantial upset. I just don't count Port Vale as a giant. But I also agree with TRM's synopsis. Our difference of opinions unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because I see this as a notable list, show how POV the whole list will always be under its current title. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peanut you and I have probably spent more time than anyone trying to keep these lists workable and I just think weŗe flogging a dead horse here. Rambling man, as a colchester fan you are forgiven :) Youre totally right anyway. The lists have been dogged from the word go by 'whataboutery.' Last season it was league one Forest beating Premiership Charlton. A straw poll from a predictions league I'm on had 13 people going for a Forest win, 12 for a Charlton win and four for a draw. Not even an upset nevermind a giant killing. No matter who we quote from, be it BBC, Sky, News of the World, theyļl never agree. As youļl agree, my POV and Original Research is no better than yours. Valenciano (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we can't use BBC, Sky or NOTW as full reliable sources because none existed when the FA Cup started so the list will never be complete using those. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cup has also been around longer than the league (and certainly longer than a series of organised lower flights of it), so the early matches are always going to be a problem from that point of view. But there are histories of the FA Cup published out there - if one of them says that, say Cambridge University beating Royal Engineers 1-0 in the 1877 Quarter Finals was a major upset (which it was - RE had won the clash of these two sides 5-0 two seasons earlier, and had been in three of the first four finals), then if that source is a reputable souce it should be good enough. This strikes me as being a similar problem to that met with by Place names considered unusual - a page which was thoroughly and sadly gutted after AFD. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete - as it seems sentiment is against it, and I was the one who originally split it from FA Cup. That said, giant-killings are an important part of the FA Cup and it should be mentioned somewhere, perhaps not in list format though. Qwghlm (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and POV on "giant-killing". Changing the title to FA Cup Upsets would still be OR and POV. Define an upset? Two non-league clubs 80+ places apart in the pyramid getting a 1-1 draw would be an upset. Lugnuts (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fchd. D.M.N. (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Ralph Macchio Project[edit]

Untitled Ralph Macchio Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of importance/significance. Appears to be about a TV show on a minor Cable TV channel. I would mark it for speedy, but its been around since June 2006. Lastly, talk page was created with "This show ain't coming on anymore so someone should delete the page." Jason McHuff 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per WP:CRYSTAL Andante1980 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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→Geography of Kerala—There is not necessarily consensus on how to do the merger, but there is consensus (with dissenting opinions) that the content should be merged as noted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of kayals in India[edit]

List of kayals in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

kayal is a word that means a lake in the Malayalam language which is spoken mainly in one state of India. It is no different than a lake. A kayal is not an English word nor is used extensively in India to mean a lake. The info in the article can very well be merged with Geography of Kerala. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you may be thinking of "loch", not "lac". In which case, have a look at List of lochs in Scotland. Kafziel Talk 07:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of lac, not loch. As you can see, List of lacs in Great Britain does not make any sense, since lac being a French word does not have anything to do with Great Britain. In a similar way, List of kayals in India makes no sense. The article better be List of lakes in India. The association of the word loch with Scotland is legendary and makes sense to have an article called List of lochs in Scotland. Not so with the word kayal, more than 90% of Indians will not even know that kayal means a lake. To add to this, Dictionary.com has no reference to kayal, indicating that it is not an English word. Hope this clarifies... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of kayals in India cannot be deleted after the information in it is merged because the article's history has to be kept in order to comply with the GFDL. The redirect allows the page history to be found. Bláthnaid 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. According to this guideline, there are ways in which a Merge and delete can be done. I have shown above, why the article title does not make any sense and I do not see a compelling reason for it to be redirected to any other article. For the nth time, what is a kayal (in English) and why do we need an article with that word in the title? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't. A redirect is not an article. Kafziel Talk 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a difference of opinion here. If this does not get clarified, I will take this up at WP:RfD for a consensus. To resolve this deadlock, I am for the time-being OK with Merge and redirect. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what an RfD would clarify. Blathnaid is correct about the licensing issue, and the "guideline" you link to above isn't a guideline at all; it's just an essay, and it's only three weeks old at that. But even under the terms of that essay, the burden is upon you to demonstrate specifically how keeping the redirect is totally unacceptable. The "use English" reason doesn't quite hold up (despite your assertion on my talk page, "obi" and "enchilada" are not proper nouns). If you realize you were wrong on this issue, then the matter can drop. If not, you're not doing us any favors by agreeing "for the time being" (i.e., "until a later date when nobody is watching"). Kafziel Talk 08:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Hello, the burden is on you to show that the word kayal makes any sense at all. You have said that you do not know a word in Malayalam but were knowledgeable enough to introduce that word in the article title!! I changed my opinion to merge and redirect since everyone agrees (including you and Blathnaid) that the article contents need to be merged to some article. The disagreement is on whether the original article should remain or not. Since you are not willing to agree that you made a mistake on that article name, I did not want to pursue the matter further here and take it to the correct forum. The right place to discuss about "redirects" is WP:RfD and hence I will pursue the matter there. I will inform you when I put it there, so that you can put in your comments. The use English does hold up according to this guideline. You were the one who introduced a word like kayal into the article title, when nobody was watching and without knowing anything about what that means. I am just trying to correct that mistake. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no disagreement on whether the article should remain. Everyone (including me) has said the name should be changed. And the right place to discuss name changes is WP:RM. The only disagreement here appears to be whether or not I'm the devious mastermind of some secret conspiracy to introduce Malayalam words into the English language. I'm pretty sure I'm not. Kafziel Talk 09:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know that you do not agree with the name. All this time, I was thinking that you were interested in a "redirect" than in a "rename". And nobody is blaming you that you are involved in any conspiracy theory. Atleast, not me. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From an admin standpoint, a redirect works the same as a rename. If we rename this "list of lakes in Kerala, India", this information will be moved to "list of lakes in Kerala, India" and "list of kayals in India" will become a redirect. There's no policy in place requiring that the original title be deleted, so saying "merge and redirect" is tantamount to saying "rename". If you can get Tintin and Utcursch to withdraw their "deletes" above, we can speedy this and I will move the article over the redirect at List of lakes in India (or you can move it to List of lakes in Kerala, India, if you prefer). Kafziel Talk 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus and added references (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Führer Headquarters[edit]

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

Mis-named, list oriented, fuzzy topic

  • Delete This was created about six weeks ago. Aside from the lack of citations, errors and listings of locations which have nothing to do with the article topic (which could be fixed), the title is meaningless (I think the title itself is WP:OR) and does not conform to WP policy. Moreover, the article as defined is rather doomed to be a list, not an encyclopedic narrative and is so vague in concept as to encourage listing through original research any place AH spent the night as a "Fuehrer Headquarters." The article is already replete with all kinds of unencyclopedic trivia, much of it wholly out of context and some of it simply wrong. Lastly, the existence of this article has already upset the accuracy of other articles through wikilinking and adapting their text to its presence. There are other worries, which I think most editors will see straight off. Further note, for context, the editor who created this article hasn't made any edits to this wiki for a month. Gwen Gale 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article seems to be quite well-written. Presumably that's because it's based upon the references cited which are about this specific topic. Judging from the article's current excellent state, the proposers's fears seem to be groundless. If there are errors of detail then she should fix them or discuss them on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the article has zero inline citations. Gwen Gale 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So add some if you feel the need. The article provides at least one authoritative reference and I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. I'm watching the page now as I'm interested in WW2 history and can protect it from vandals and axe-grinders. Colonel Warden 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its lack of citations is only a symptom. The very name of this article is both WP:OR and an invitation to create a misleading information dump with no historical context. Gwen Gale 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. The name seems to be a straightforward translation of the German term for the official HQs being built for Hitler and works for me in English. The article states that there was a list of 20 of these planned and so this nicely limits the scope-creep that you fear. Colonel Warden 09:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scope creep (as you put it) is already evident in the article. Moreover, the Kehlsteinhaus, which is pictured in the article, was most definitely not a German military headquarters, it was a retreat above his house and he rarely even went there. Gwen Gale 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kehlsteinhaus is associated with the Berghof and the two are listed together. It would be absurd to omit this complex from the article. If you don't like the exact presentation then you are free to edit it. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete and AFD is not cleanup. Your proposal seems an unnecessary overreaction to an editing dispute. Colonel Warden 10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kehlsteinhaus was never a military headquarters, nor was it built as one but the article represents it separately as a military headquarters. This could be fixed (as I've mentioned already above) but it's is a symptom of the article's deep conceptual flaws. Gwen Gale 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Adolf, I tire of this nest. :) My opinion stands. Colonel Warden 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does not appear to be irretrievably broken. I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, but since there has been a fair amount of activity, I would at least tag it for sourcing and clean up. In fact, since it doesn't seem to have been done previously I'll do ahead and do that now. If it still doesn't improve we could always reconsider it. Perhaps one of the projects wants it? Xymmax 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a "fair amount of activity." The editor who created it six weeks ago hasn't touched it in five weeks. There has been no meaningful interest from other editors. The only edits by others have been a typo fix, a tag and the tag for this AfD. Gwen Gale 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: (I started and wrote the article). Sorry, Gwen Gale, but your concerns do very much confuse me;

1. Lack of citations - this can be fixed and I will do so.
2. Errors - where? what? Please describe the errors you claim are present.
3. Listings of locations which have nothing to do with the article topic. What? Que? Are you serious?
4. The title is meaningless - sorry, that's bs. The title and article scope describes the concept of FHQ:s which are historical facts which certainly has encyclopedic value. The FHQ:s were special, not just where "Hitler spent the night".
5. Original research/breach of WP policy - sorry, that's bs too. The article information is based on the references listed, and I have not personally invented anything. Furthermore, there are similar articles in the German and Polish Wikipedia here: Führerhauptquartier (German) and Führerhauptquartier (Polish).
6. Vague in concept - sorry, you're misinformed or ignorant. Consult history books, the references listed or the wikipedia links above.

If you're still concerned with contents, please constribute and help out with the article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my remarks "bs" is wholly unacceptable and does not speak helpfully for your edits. Gwen Gale 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have to live with it, since I found the claims to be bs. After all, Wikipolicy allows me to comment on opinions, and I chose to do so - there was no personal attack intended - don't take any offense. I have added 4 citations in 4 important places, and removed the "sources" tag, "OR" tag (since it's bs) and the cleanup tag, as I fail to see what cleanup is needed. But please challenge me on this if you feel like it. When I wrote the article I thought it through and researched it as thorough as possible - that's why I haven't added anything since then. As the article states there were about 14 (20 planned) headquarters, so no need to fear that the list will expand significantly in the future. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy does not allow you to characterize edits of others with an acronym for bullshit. Unhappily, this must end my conversation with you for now. Gwen Gale 15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Flies through all relevant policies and guidelines. If only all six week old articles were as good as this one! Phil Bridger 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of India energy articles[edit]

List of India energy articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant and serves no purpose. The Category: Energy in India is exactly what the article is all about ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments made by those supporting that it is not redundant to either category or another article. Davewild (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of India[edit]

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

This is a redundant article. The information provided here can very well be merged into the article, Rivers of India. If it is a list of rivers that is needed, Category:Rivers of India is sufficient. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dont see the need of two articles, one titled Rivers of India and the other titled List of rivers of India. If it is an alphabetical name list that is needed, there is a category already. If a detailed article is needed, Rivers of India is already present. We dont need duplicate articles, that eventually should contain the same thing. Hence the nom. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits —Preceding comment was added at 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is too much data here to be included in the Rivers of India article, and it has some useful info that a single cat cannot include. Unless this info is included in articles about the respective areas, seas etc or we have cats like "Rivers that fall into the Arabian Sea", it may be better to let it stay. Tintin 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NOT redundant with a category, and much better at presenting the information. A category does not contain the redlinks that this list does. The category cannot thread the entries to show which rivers are tributaries to which rivers. Passes all criteria and purposes of Wikipedia:Lists, it is an informational and structured list, it helps navigating the encyclopedia due to the structure, and the redlinks serve a developmental purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I completely agree with you that a category will not be sufficiently informative of what List of rivers of India could contain. But we already have an article Rivers of India which essentially does the same thing. Why do we need the redundancy unless there is a compelling reason for doing so? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, fair point. :-) But isn't redirect better than outright deletion? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That thought did occur to me. However, I did not see a compelling reason for letting the article be redirected to Rivers of India. When the article 'X' is there, would you really need 'List of X' (with its history and associated space that it consumes) to be redirected to 'X'. Any wikilink or searches would be made on the term "rivers" and "India", and the List of rivers of India would not serve much purpose than by just being a redirect. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information in this article cannot be fully represented in a category because its redlinks cannot be included in a category. Rivers of India redirects to Major rivers of India, so these two articles are complementary, not duplicate. All the rivers in List of rivers of India cannot be included in Major rivers of India because not all of the rivers are major. "List of X" is a plausible search term, I for one use it all the time. Bláthnaid 20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is exactly what WP lists are for and such lists rightly exist in WP for many countries of the world (170 such lists for countries and states). To quote WP policy on lists which many editors need to read:
2. Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. 3. Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).WP:LIST. Does the list need improvement? Then do so. Hmains 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liza David[edit]

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

Actress has appeared in only one very minor role, nowhere close to WP:BIO standards for entertainers. COI seems evident, notability does not. shoeofdeath 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Danzer[edit]

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

Non-notable poker player. Had his 15 minutes of fame during last year's World Series of Poker, but that's about it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the future, please add new nominations to the top of the page. Thanks, Rjd0060 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops, sorry, did not mean to do that ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not appear to be notable, and I cannot find sufficient RS to help with notability. - Rjd0060 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even come close to meeting the proposed guidelines for poker players.Balloonman (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable person. Maser (Talk!) 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not to be confused with Georg Danzer. --Austrian 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin Force[edit]

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

Pseudoscience. P4k 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - appears to be based on Torsion field theory, itself a pseudoscientific belief. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience to get a more knowledgeable opinion. --carelesshx talk 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An article that treats the topic as at a meta-level might be acceptable (e.g. an article about the belief as in Superstition), but as written it appears the article is factually wrong. Mdmkolbe 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable, and counterfactual, and close to meaningless at points.--Prosfilaes 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utter bullshit (with no evidence of notability). Someguy1221 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While pseudoscience in-and-of-itself is not grounds for deletion, when the pseudoscience has no chance of being reliably sourced, it needs to be excised from Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ScienceApologist says it well. I concur. Tim Ross·talk 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and renaming should be discussed. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Published alternate histories[edit]

Published alternate histories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A trivial list of published alternate histories doesn't show much importance. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This has clearly been taken out of the main Alternative History article because it was getting too long. It would seem perverse to then delete it. Why is this list trivial anyway, particularly taken in conjunction with its parent article? Alternative history novels have become a highly popular genre, although the roots go back to the Invasion literature of the Edwardian age and before. Anyone actually researching this genre would be looking for just such a list as this. I don't see how this is a directory either. Nick mallory 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the very least this needs to be renamed and requires a massive overhaul. Should be renamed to something along the lines of Notable alternate histories, as the present title is far too vague. Also, it obviously needs tons of work, especially as far as references go. If those things are done, maybe this could be a decent article. In its current state, a deletion is warranted. faithless (speak) 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's called published to distinguish the books here from films etc. As for needing references, almost every book is a blue link so even now the reader can click on that to find more information, and references, about the novel in question. Nick mallory 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I still think the title is far too vague, and should give some criteria for inclusion, such as Notable published alternate histories (I know, that's terrible). The current name leaves the door open for any alternate history ever written, and that just won't do. I'll give the article another look; if I don't comment here again, the closer of this AfD can disregard my above deletion argument. faithless (speak) 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not trivial and not a directory. Can source most of this to the Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction which I have in hardback. 86.136.83.63 21:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Nick mallory. Rray (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that a completed list would have thousands of entries and be completely unmaintainable. Also the entire concept of "alternate histories" is somewhat subjective in scope. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep as long as it is only of "notable" alternate histories, not all alternate histories. Perhaps, as faithless says, it should be renamed. Also, see my comments on the article's talk page. Akiyama (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources, which make it impossible to verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neoseeker[edit]

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

This article is basically an ad for a website, and the only source for any information in it is the website itself. The article has been tagged for months with a request for sources, but none seem to be forthcoming. I can't find anything on Google or Google news indicating that this is a particularly notable site, and I don't see any evidence that it meets our inclusion criteria per WP:WEB. I suggest we delete it; please discuss. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Even though I don't think it fits neatly into any of the inclusion criteria for WP:WEB, I think it's worthy of an article on the basis of size. The only external links I can find to the site are other tech sites that aggregate (is that the right word) and link back to Neoseeker reviews, although I blame this on the fact that neoseeker's own subdomains account for at least 10 pages of google results. Definitely needs cleanup though - currently too detailed and spammy. --carelesshx talk 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is definitely an article we should keep. The reason a lot of places don't link back to it or contain information on it is because it's a hardware and tech review site (With the occasional game review). Deleting Neoseeker's Wiki article would be like deleting Gamespot's Wiki article.Guticb (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide evidence that the site meets any of the criteria at WP:WEB, or can you suggest any way to write an article verifiable in reliable independent sources? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wholly unreferenced. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It has made some significant contributions. Some may remember the whole Bigfoot in GTA San Andreas thing. It started on Neoseeker. In theory, most of this article is verifiable. It would be difficult to verify some things though. Most of the statistics are from the site itsself (DUH, there aren't gonna be other sites that keep track of how many users Neoseeker has >_>) Guticb (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And THIS isn't just a big ad for GameFAQs? If the Neoseeker article is deleted, then I think it's only fair to take down all other gaming sites articles. Or other sites articles in general. We deserve the same amount of respect as you give other sites. If need be, we could change it to better fit other site's articles. Jon24hours (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I completely disagree with the statement that it's Wikipedia page is nothing more then an advertisement for the subject in question. It's a historic database on an internet forum, which is a valid topic in your WP:WEB, that holds more then 300,000 members who have built a site around thousands of different topics (not a far off path from how Wiki works). Stating that it's Wikipedia page was built for the soul purpose of advertising could be said for practically any website related article. Ecto5 19:47, 10 December 2007
  • Keep. The point about referencing is kinda weak, because if you look at other website articles (such as the GameFAQs one that's being mentioned) is also filled with self-referencing citations. Scanning through the GameFAQs references, I see 84 references with...what, 10? coming from something besides gamefaqs.com or one of its subdomains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnivorous Sheep (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Reliable sources, an article can not exist in wikipedia. Also closing admin should discount those meatpuppet votes above. Thanks Secret account 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death to gonzo encyclopedia writing! It is an unsourced "about us" page that belongs on their website, not in an encyclopedic. My quick scan of Google News shows no sign of this website passing WP:WEB. There have been proponents at this Afd, but the article hasn't improved, nor have reliable sources been provided here. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when the meatpuppets arrive I immediately smell a rat. This page must go as completely lacking any reliable, secondary sources. There is no attempt to provide a NPOV by including any critical assessment. Fails WP:V which is policy. TerriersFan (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see only in-house citations. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus to delete; consensus to rename—It appears there is a consensus to rename to something more easily understood. I will leave that renaming to a discussion on Talk:List of record labels starting with a non-letter. The main lack of consensus on deletion is between the use of lists vs. categories. Among those arguing for categorization two options emerge: putting everything into Category:Record labels vs. putting into categories such as Category:Record labels starting with A. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of record labels starting with a non-letter[edit]

List of record labels starting with a non-letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate list of record labels. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I wasn't fully aware of the context of this list when I nominated it. I do think the information should be kept, just maybe in a category. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per... yeah. What they said. --carelesshx talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, this is what categories are for. MortimerCat 08:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the article, there are over 20,000 record labels and so I can see that some structural lists like this might be needed and useful. Colonel Warden 08:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is spliting out a massive list of record labels into smaller, managable chunks. Yes, there is a category for record labels (Category:Record labels), but this is a top level cat, and individual labels are categorized by location, genre, year of establishment, etc. Lugnuts 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only if we're deleting all of the lists and making sure everything is in the category.--SeizureDog 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The background to this was to break up the original article List of record labels. Over time, each letter has been cleansed (removal of non-notable labels) and expanded (trawling through all the sub-cats - by country, genre, independent status, etc) to populate those pages. Each record label entry usually points back to the main list for reference. As far as I'm aware there is no other A-Z view of record labels on Wikipedia. There is a message in the cat for record labels that instructs people not to put individual labels in the top level cat. Often I move new articles from that cat to appropiate sub-cats (eg Category:American record labels, etc). When checking on how to break up a big list, I read the WP guidance on this, and surprise, surprise, look at one of the examples on that very page quotes - List of record labels starting with A! Thanks for your time. Lugnuts 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list adds nothing that couldn't be better achieved by using a category. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you'd have, for example Lugnuts Records, in the category Category:Record labels and then in the subcats Category:British record labels and Category:Alternative music record labels? Lugnuts 15:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go along with the above comment. I think in a very early list there was some odd-ball entry starting with a non-letter, but renaming it to <<with a number>> sounds good to me. Lugnuts 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this indiscriminate? IE - how does it lack in selectivity? It's quite the opposite - a clear list of notable record labels starting with a non-letter. How is it any different from this list or this one or this one? Lugnuts (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my note above. I wasn't quite sure of the context before nominating this. I thought it was an indiscriminate list, but I see that this was just following a pattern of other lists. The title was what confused me most. I would be in favor of a move to List of record labels 0-9, since they all start with numbers. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I'm absouletly clear - this should be moved to the new/standard name and not deleted? Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be categorized under Category:Record labels 0-9 (or a variant thereof), and then delete this one, but if the AfD is closed as keep, it should definitely be moved. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing it up. I'd happily support the renaming of the page, but not the categorization, as explained above. Lugnuts (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep simply based on comments from GTBacchus. Awkward page name. And not really category content. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these lists can be dealt with through the use of MediaWiki categories. RFerreira (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) by Redvers. I am merely closing this discussion; perhaps discuss with the deleting admin to restore and move (or go through DRV). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foley martin[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability, seems to violate MYSPACE. Marlith T/C 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is nothing more than a resume. - Rjd0060 05:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Move the page after this closes. - Rjd0060 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Side, St. Paul, Minnesota[edit]

East Side, St. Paul, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This distinction is not notable. List of neighborhoods is unnecessary. Discussion not balanced. — Yavoh 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable, except as a local reference (ie: "East St. Paul / West St. Paul) which probably exists in every city in the country. - Rjd0060 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the "West Side" is that portion of St. Paul west of the Mississippi River and the "Greater East Side" is one of many neighborhoods on the east side of the river. For those interested, see the map here:[32] Also, West St. Paul is an entirely different municipality and shouldn't be confused.--Appraiser 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the city itself only has a population of 287,000 so such a division is hardly necessary. Also, most of the facts in the article could be included in St. Paul, Minnesota with little fuss. --carelesshx talk 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now, move this information to its section in St. Paul neighborhoods. I think it could be developed into a stand-alone article in the future.--Appraiser 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that it can be developed into an article in the future but I wouldn't suggest merging it to St. Paul neighborhoods. Several days ago the article was speedy deleted as a copyvio of this website. I think the recreated article article stiil looks too similar. Eóin 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was doh! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programs in The Simpsons[edit]

List of television programs in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tell me I don't have to explain how incredibly non-notable this article is. SeizureDog 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was that SPA tag really necessary?--WaltCip 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Simpsons is indeed notable, but that doesn't automatically make every article on them notable as well. Read up on the notability policies. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Gyles[edit]

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

Person does not appear to exist. None of the historical references included actual mention this person. Seems to be fabricated. Wikime25 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of humanitarian and peace organizations[edit]

List of humanitarian and peace organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete a hopelessly undermaintained and confused list. First, "humanitarian" and "peace" is a close but quite different descriptors. Second, there are thousands of them around the world. Third, I see nothing in this list that cannot be covered by categories. Laudak 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capt. Harrison Love[edit]

Capt. Harrison Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mask of Zorro movie article. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - no professional film criticism sources are provided. Laudak 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. If it is important to The Mask of Zorro, it should be included in that article. No need for a separate article here. - Rjd0060 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—aside from the absence of support for notability on its own, I feel that all that is to be said about the character and his role in the film is said in The Mask of Zorro. I do not recommend redirecting; a better redirect would be Harrison Love. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Monterro[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mask of Zorro movie article. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete no professional film criticism references are provided. Laudak 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again, if it is important to The Mask of Zorro, then merge there, but the character isn't otherwise notable. - Rjd0060 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—recapitulating my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capt. Harrison Love ... aside from the absence of support for notability on its own, I feel that all that is to be said about the character and his role in the film is said in The Mask of Zorro. Re-creating as a redirect to the film would be reasonable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rogers (journalist)[edit]

Tim Rogers (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. HitotsuOne 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wholly nn. JJL 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete': I, Francis Armitage, human mortal and not meatpuppet, though not immortal from Highlander, support the deletion of this article for the same reasons. As a gesture of good faith, I swear to edit and delete several other articles and go on at length about why Tim Rogers' article should be deleted, whether you want me to or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Armitage (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — Frank Armitage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete: Not notable; no assertion of notability (being a journalist isn't sufficient assertion). - Rjd0060 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Too early for glory. No notability independent references. Laudak (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article seems to assert no notability beyond the output of a working free lance journalist. Gwen Gale 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as not sufficiently notable. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete- we don't need this existing for five more days. The consensus is clear, as are the facts: this is a somewhat amusing (especially in regards to the reference), but extremely obvious, hoax. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverbarn[edit]

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

This article is clearly nonsense, event the image provided is computer generated. When google searched [33] it returns nothing related to what this user is talking about. This isn't quite applicable for speedy deletion, however it should at least be reviewed and debated. Eastonlee 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no arguments for deletion have been made, those arguing for keep have made policy based arguments for keeping. Whether any of these with fewer reliable sources should be merged can be considered elsewhere not requiring a deletion discussion. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Chicken Sandwich[edit]

Original Chicken Sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TenderCrisp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Chicken Fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Chicken Tenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Big Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Croissan'Wich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Angus burger (Burger King) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Big King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Stacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Veggie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK XXL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rodeo Cheeseburger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TenderGrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Crown Jewels line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BK Baguette line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Large, large amount of cruft. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog (or in this case a menu), and as such we do not need lengthy descriptions of every product on the Burger King menu: they are not independently notable, nor do they help establish the notability of Burger King, nor are any of them an important enough aspect of Burger King to warrant their own articles. Add to that the fact that most of these lack any reliable sources whatsoever, most suffer from peacock terms, and that there already exists an article, Burger King products, that can contain short descriptions of these menu items. - Chardish 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't agree that these articles read as a way to sell the products (or menu). Some of them could use more information, and could honestly be written a little better, but a number of the articles give a context of the concept and culture used to create these items which also gives a context of the business practices of Burger King. Some of these articles have way too much information to just merge into the Burger King products article as well.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All: As stated above. Obviously. - Rjd0060 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
Reasons for keep:
  1. These items are the major products or products that are unique to major global company, not every product they sell.
  2. WP:NOT - these articles are not a set of indiscriminate information, and they do not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not.
  3. They show how a company adapts when moving into new markets and address cultural differences between its home market and the areas it does business.
  4. The help show how a company responds to its competition by adapting existing lines of products or creating new ones.
  5. When sourced (I admit that not all have sources), the sources include major industry magazines (Nation's Restaurant News), major news outlets (AP, USA Today and NY Times) and sites that deal with nutritional and health news. All of the content is supported by multiple, independent sources
  6. I did not do any original research, all the data and information was found through searches made on Google. The information was sourced via the results. Searches included Burger King Islam, Burger King nutrition and Burger King Asia. When sourcing, I tried to avoid BK sites.
Additionally, they meet the four standards of notability as stated in WP:NOTE:
  1. There is significant coverage of the subject in the independent press;
  2. The sources are reliable;
  3. The sources are all secondary, or if primary, follow the WP:PSTS guides for primary sources;
  4. I generated none of the information, am not promoting the products, it is not structured as an ad (no peacock statements) and it is not a press release.
With the ongoing debate about obesity in Western nations, there has been signifigant media coverage of the items in the press to fulfill WP:Notability standards, and many have cited references in the articles. Also, many of these articles were created in response to growing size of the main article, Burger King products, using the WP:Summary style guidelines. Finally, if you could please list the peacock terms that you are claiming to exist, as I pretty much edited all peacock terms out of the main body these articles months ago to ensure that they all conformed with the WP:NPOV guidelines and appear to have missed some. - Jeremy (Jerem43 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. "WP:NOT - these articles are not a set of indiscriminate information, and they do not meet any of the ten general defining criteria set forth in WP:Not." from WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of other terrible ideas" such as a sales catalog; WP:INN, are you saying that every one of these products has independent press coverage? --Thinboy00 @52, i.e. 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, whether it is over nutritional issues, new or unique products or because they are mentioned in reference for an cross-promotional advertising campaign; just about all of them have had some sort of press coverage. By this time tomorrow I should have at least four citations of secondary sources for each article from reliable places such as the New York Times, USAToday, AP, Reuters and even Variety, all currently have at least one as of now - Jeremy (Jerem43 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)), amended (06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep all and try to reference better. Excellent summaries, and excellent nutritional information, excellent photos, but the ugliest infobox, for BK, I have ever seen in Wikipedia. And please don't cite cruft as a reason for deletion, just stick to the Wikipedia notability guidelines. The ones I have looked at are excellent with summaries of the national advertising campaigns, A quick search in the NYT archive gave lots of references. Fast food items are one of the largest selling consumer food products in history, especially the big 5 lines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all The only BK product notable enough to have its own article would be the Whopper.--SeizureDog 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be more helpful if you cited some transgression of Wikipedia notability policy. Anecdotes are fun, but not of use in policy debates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just taking one at random, BK Veggie gets 246 Google News hits, many of which seem usable. I'll bet a good number of these items can be shown to pass WP:N with a little research. Zagalejo^^^ 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I agree with Jerem43's point about all of these sandwiches meeting the 4 inclusion standards he references from WP:NOTE and with Richard Arthur Norton's comments about AfD not being an appropriate forum for dealing with matters of cruft, especially when the intended result of this nomination seems to be a merger into the "list of..." article. I could see there being a case for some of the lesser-known products to maybe be merged until they have some work done, but most of these food items (especially the TenderCrisp, Croissan'Wich, Orig. Chicken Sandwich, and Chicken Tenders) the sail past notability guidelines with ease. These articles should be tagged for sources, improvement, and expansion as needed and have the info boxes improved and, maybe some of them like the baguettes and Stacker should be slapped with a merge tag and have it discussed on talk pages. Overall, though, Wikipedia is better for having NPOV articles on popular products from international FF outlets. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cruft is shorthand for "I don't like it", and I am too lazy to do the simplest due diligence with a Google News search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per SeizureDog. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 14:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. (Improvement is needed, of course.) Rocket000 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All adequate sources and information is provided to establish notability. Contrary to the nomination, this is not a sales catalog (or at least I found no way to place an order for a BK Stacker). "Cruft" is just a shorthand excuse for deletion that basically translates directly as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All of the other issues raised in the nomination (e.g. WP:PEACOCK) are most appropriately addressed by editing, not by deletion. Alansohn 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I forgot to add that myself, I knew that the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has a specific tag for that: WP:ITSCRUFT. - Jeremy (Jerem43 19:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • No, "cruft" is a shorthand argument that means "this topic is not notable independent of its parent topic, and there is not enough culturally relevant information on this topic from secondary sources to warrant having its own article." - Chardish 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At least perform the minimal due diligence before typing here. A simple Google News search, which I did before making a comment, indicated to me that the the topic was notable. All it took was a few nanoseconds, faster than it took you to write "cruft". If you are still arguing at this point that there is "not enough culturally relevant information on this topic". I keenly suspect, you still haven't done any research. I cant even be sure you read each of the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has a whole set of policies. "Cruft" isn't one of them. Until "Cruft" is accepted as a valid justification for deletion, it should never be used under any circumstances as the primary excuse for deleting a whole series of articles solely because the nominator doesn't like them. Alansohn 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not what you think, so please click through! --Thinboy00 @52, i.e. 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've chosen to ignore it, in keeping with the title. An appeal to [{WP:IAR]] traditionally means "I don't have a shred of Wikipedia policy to hang this on, but I want to do whatever the hell I want, anyway". Alansohn 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These satisfy notability criteria and they contain plenty of encyclopedic content. Good grief. Wikidemo (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron83 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TriOptimum Corporation[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Unified National Nominate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No assertion of real-world notability. Single source provides only in-universe plot summary; no secondary sources to provide critical commentary/reaction. --EEMIV (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources cited on either article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All: Not notable, unsourced. - Rjd0060 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pity, as the article is actually quite good, but as the subject has no notability outside its parent game it's delete from me too. If sourced it would have been worth merging into System Shock though. EyeSereneTALK 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchwrap Supreme[edit]

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

Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Non-notable food item; being sold by a notable restaurant chain does not confer notability. No notability independent of Taco Bell and not a major enough part of Taco Bell to warrant its own article. Chardish 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Taco Bell. They may be delicious (so sue me, I love Taco Bell...) but they're not notable enough for their own article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too much information here to merge into the Taco Bell article, and appears sufficient to justify own article. --DAJF 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It isn't important, it isn't notable, and IMO, it isn't good. - Rjd0060 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's good to go...off of Wikipedia! - Chardish 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see how this is "sufficient to justify [its] own article" when it's a stub. Some of the information would probably be useful in the Taco Bell article, but not enough for its own. Scudmissile 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reeks of WP:ADVERT. Not that a fast food item can't be notable, but this ain't no Big Mac. Hell, it isn't even a Whopper. faithless (speak) 09:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion was added to the list of deletion proposals at WikiProject Food and drink on 3 December. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect→Taco Bell—I do think this is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. To the comment that this is too much to merge into Taco Bell, the solution would be to create a article entitled Taco Bell Products (or similar) as a split from the main article. The potential for such a split is why I think 'redirect' is better than 'delete'; 'delete' would make the content inaccessible to most editors and would discourage development of such a split. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowleggy[edit]

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

Notability - I can't find any independent, reliable sources about this person (her own website is not an independent source of information because she wrote it) greenrd 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – In its present state, I would have also nominated for deletion. However, I believe an article can be done on this subject. In just a quick Google search it shows over 400,000 hits for Resident Evil Numa [34] when the search criteria of Shadowleggy is added [35] you are still looking at over 50,000 hits. I would stubify and put a request out to editors to help improve article rather than delete article. Shoessss |  Chat  02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable outside blogosphere. --DAJF 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable third-party published sources can be found, per WP:WEB. —David Eppstein 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Da Englisch nicht scheint zu arbeiten, ist unten ein Reposting einiger Aufstellungsorte, die das Thema des Artikels beziehen. [36]

[37]. [38].

A translation of above is, Since English does not seem to work, below is a reposting of several sites referencing the article’s subject.Shoessss |  Chat  03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but the "top video clips" one doesn't count as a published source, I think. And if you search Google Scholar and Google News for "Resident Evil Numa" as a phrase rather than as words that might be far apart in the document, nothing comes up, nor do they find anything for "Shadowleggy". —David Eppstein 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per User:David Eppstein above. Would require some excellent sources to be found, then I'd change my !vote per WP:HEY. - Rjd0060 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not on the level of Youtube Celebrities. Burzmali 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Time Imperfect[edit]

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

Article about non-notable band was recreated immediately after being Speedy Deleted for not asserting notability. Still fails WP:BAND as well as having WP:COI issues. DAJF 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete –. Non-Notable. Shoessss |  Chat  02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom's reason (fails to meet Music guidelines). - Rjd0060 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolute NN, with added attempt at looking notable by multiplying external links. Andante1980 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails CSD A7. Recreation of page previously speedy deleted. -- MightyWarrior 10:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N and specifically WP:BAND and is a COI. That they've only sold 10 albums (according to the article) indicates that the obvious NN. Paiev 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Already deleted once (in the past day) so fails CSD A7. Blake01 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how it meets WP:MUSIC in any way. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Booth (technologist)[edit]

Jerry Booth (technologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography. Unsourced. There is some claim to notability, but any article should be created by someone without a conflict of interest. Delete. gadfium 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NN. Possible Speedy Delete for not even asserting notability? --DAJF 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –. Vanity piece. Shoessss |  Chat  02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Close to, but probably not over, the WP:CSD#A7 no-assertion-of-notability line. —David Eppstein 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a minor assertion of notability (though it is unsourced). Not notable. - Rjd0060 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No support for claimed notability, which only looks marginal at best anyway. Serious WP:AUTO problem with this user: even his talk page and user page have been deleted several times as blatant spam/nn-bio/etc. DMacks 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could have been either {{db-spam}} or {{db-nn}}. Andante1980 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources of notability Printer222 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COI is not a criterion for deletion (only for denial of ability to climb on the quality scale) but lack of notability and lack of reliable sources are. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete—Unfortunately, the proposed merge target itself has been deleted. I am personally not a fan of the present wave of fiction-related deletions; however, in this case, there is not even the saving grace of being verifiable via cited reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bokusen'on[edit]

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

Fictional tree lacks real world notability, is not cited with secondary sources independent of the subject, and is solely plot summary Pilotbob 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The keep reasons didn't give a reason for keeping this article, AFD is not a vote Secret account 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phyton[edit]

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

Not notable, lacks a real world context, plot information only, cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Pilotbob 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though I salute After Midnight for erring on the side of caution.--Kubigula (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towy boat club[edit]

Towy boat club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. After Midnight 0001 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Non notable club, and no assertion of notability. I've went ahead and tagged it. - Rjd0060 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that I thought about just speedying it myself, but as I had just deleted a plethora of images on the page, I wanted to err on the side of caution/fairness to the author in this case. --After Midnight 0001 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Rjd0060: Does not even assert notability/ --DAJF 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 JForget 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Yamato X series[edit]

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

Hoax, nonsense. This game does not exist, all pages are almost exactly the same, copied from Ape Escape series. This debate also includes, all other pages of this group, list in coming. -Carados 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shadow Yamato X Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shadow Yamato X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shadow Yamato X: Feudal Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil_Knight_Man_(Shadow_Yamato_X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evil_Yamato_Man_(Shadow_Yamato_X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turles Yamato (Shadow Yamato X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hemamotos Yamato (Shadow Yamato X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hemamotus Yamato (Shadow Yamato X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Virus and Robot Masters in Shadow Yamato X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hemamotos Yamato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • That was an accident, sorry. -Carados 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, good sir. I was not sure on the proper way to mark multiple articles for deletion. Or, like, at all. -Carados 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you help me get the three images, as seen below Mission 50 in Shadow Yamato X, into a Images for deletion?-Carados 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this game was real, I'd suggest deleting these articles as fancruft. As it doesn't even exist... super-strong delete! Terraxos 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Delete, Delete......: Hoax. - Rjd0060 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I see no evidence of notability (or existence). Also, at least several of the pages are essentially repeats of each other, e.g. "Hemamotus Yamato" and "Hemamotos Yamato" -- one letter different in the name, and esentailly same content in at least 4 pages. And until I inserted "is a fictional character" it was talking as if this stuff was in the real world. And most of the top Google hits link back to the Wikipedia page one way or another. --Coppertwig 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Lonely Lest the Wiser[edit]

For Lonely Lest the Wiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sole release from Dr Manhattan, also here for consideration. Discussion page contains more debate than the parent article. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The group itself does not meet MUSIC guidelines, so delete this too. - Rjd0060 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Also, just for the ease of future generations, if this is deleted, Category:Dr_Manhattan_albums needs to be deleted too. -Carados 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –. As per above. Shoessss |  Chat  03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db tag should not have been removed. The album isn't even out yet, and it will be the first release by an nn band. Corvus cornixtalk 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This album has been released; it's another Dr Manhattan album that hasn't come out yet. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Manhattan (band)[edit]

Dr Manhattan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Article fails WP:BAND - while they apparently have an album out (also tagged for AfD), the article claims their debut album will be out in March 2008. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As of 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC), this group does not meet MUSIC guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjd0060 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and recreate in March 2008. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete –. As per above. Shoessss |  Chat  03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one album on nn label. JJL 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no releases yet. The one album has not been released, and won't for several months. I don't see why my speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reference showing they're touring can be provided (which would then meet WP:MUSIC). Precious Roy (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW & as well-sourced now. SkierRMH (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note, this was "AfD'd" once before Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MSC Armonia (ship) with a result of keep. SkierRMH (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSC Armonia[edit]

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

This is a cruise ship, and... well, that's about it. It's a cruise ship. No indication that it has played a significant role in the history of cruise shipping, no indication that something newsworthy happened to or on this ship. All we know about this ship is that it exists. But there is not a single indication, after more than three years, that this ship is notable or encyclopedic. AecisBrievenbus 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —AecisBrievenbus 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cruise ship yes, but it appears to be notable. - Rjd0060 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not the same thing as "importance" -- a somewhat ridiculous form of instruction creep. But in fact this ship was used as a secure location to house leaders during the 27th G8 summit in Genoa, Italy.[39] --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is obviously a fairly notable ship, due to its involvement in the 27th G8 summit, and returns a plethora of hits, when entered into google.Eastonlee 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. Shoessss |  Chat  03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Before the G8 summit, I probably would have agreed wholeheartedly with nom. But now it seems to clearly pass notability guidelines. Additional citations should be very easy to find via Google. Kensuke Aida 04:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Navy ships are obviouisly notable and I would hold that most commercial ones are too, but then I'm English so maybe I have salt water in my blood. This one played a well publicised role in the summit as mentioned above so there's no question about its inclusion. It should be remembered that these modern cruise liners are absolutely huge, this one is 58,600 tons and is 824 feet long. It's as big, and almost as long, as RMS Titanic for example, and with a full passenger list there's nearly three thousand people on board. It dominates any environment it's in, in short it's not a back river rowing boat and clearly deserves an article. Nick mallory 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article clearly establishes notability for mine especially its role in the G8 summit. Capitalistroadster 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Sailor Moon characters[edit]

List of minor Sailor Moon characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list that fails WP:FICT and is mostly WP:PLOT. Fancruft/trivia mostly. Oddly enough, unlike most minor character lists, this one actually does include a few significant characters, but there appears to be no List of characters in Sailor Moon, so an possible alternative to deletion would be a rename, cull out all the minor characters, and make it a list of major/significant characters instead. Collectonian 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It looks like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into these lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair, we should retain these lists and return the guideline to its pre-August state, and then debate it openly later. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom's reason. Why can't these be incorporated in to the appropriate Sailor Moon article? - Rjd0060 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per Collectionian's suggestion. Naru Osaka and Yuichirou Kumada are important enough to have mention here, but Sailor Chanel and Makoto Hanamatsura? Not so much. JuJube 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plan is to move those guys once we get an article about the Sailor Moon sidestories and omake up and running. (Which will also merge with Parallel Sailor Moon.) --Masamage ♫ 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup per Collectonian's suggestion. I suppose why they are called minor is because you can only say there are 10 major characters (Senshi + Tuxedo Mask + Chibiusa) and the main character, Usagi. The minor characters are recurring characters which have certain tie in with the plots of the 5 seasons but have to be listed as minor. Example, Naru always gets attacked by the antagonist one way or another, and Yuuichiro plays the love interest for Rei. The article in question is the appropriate article for all of these minor but recurring characters. --Hanaichi 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep and clean up per nom. Wait, "keep per nom"? Why is this discussion happening in a deletion forum rather than on the article's talk page? --Masamage ♫ 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs clean-up, but it isn't total fancruft. Maser (Talk!) 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and merge/keep per nom's suggestion. – sgeureka t•c 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep The article is not even compleate. There are other charcters that need to be coverd such as the Maenads. Also there are many more even more minor charcters would could have coverd suchs ohhh let me think... every single victim of the day? I think we provided a nice standard for what we belive is minor and not just pointless. We just chose the word minor becuase incomparison to the main 10 (Main 14/15 in the final season) they were minor. Most of them stop appearing by the final arc. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its obvious, and while its sheer length should be a sign of completion, it isn't. From the article talk page I see you are moving in even more characters from WikiMoon, the Sailor Moon wiki where such excessively detailed, in-universe info is good and appropriate. Why not leave it over there and make the appropriate link off to it from the appropriate page? What point/purpose is there in duplicating the information here when WikiMoon is the far better forum for it and it faces deletion here because it does NOT fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Collectonian 18:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not all of the characters mentioned on the talk page can be added; we know absolutely nothing about several of the really minor ones, so they probably will have to be left to WikiMoon. Many of the characters already discussed in the article, though, are only considered "minor" because there are so ridiculously many Sailor Senshi. In the first 10% of the season, for example, Naru is more or less a main character. In fact, I bet she figures in more episodes than Sailor Saturn does. The same goes for several of the others in the list, and for the really minor ones we've included, there are already plans about moving them around to other existing articles where their mention is more appropriate. (Also, while I'm thinking of it, I've been working on a proper list for ages and it's almost ready.) --Masamage ♫ 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps, then, a better title would be List of secondary Sailor Moon characters? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Collectionian and JuJube. If possible, out-of-universe data should be added. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I of course cant judge the significance of these characters, but doing the article like this is immensely superior to trying to have individual articles. This is the sort of article which, according to WP:SUMMARY, should be encouraged. The current version of the fiction guideline saying otherwise seems to be totally disputed, and rightly so, for it is at odds with general WP principles. DGG (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, discounting Tourskin's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Sandstein (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha yōkai list[edit]

InuYasha yōkai list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnotable list of fancruft that fails WP:FICT and is mostly minute WP:PLOT details. Redundant as well, since any notable yokai that appear here are also already better covered in List of InuYasha characters. Collectonian 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It looks like the guideline that allowed many pages of characters to be consolidated into these lists was changed, without being well advertized, back in August 2007. One editor, in fact, changed how the policy reads, although supposedly this was a stylistic change of some sort. Since that seems unfair, we should retain these lists and return the guideline to its pre-August state, and then debate it openly later. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverified, OR, that is plot info..Per nom. - Rjd0060 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such minute detail belongs in a InuYasha fan site or wiki, or an anime wiki. It is not encyclopedic nor notable to include every last character, and this list just replicates data from the other two lists. Collectonian 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid question: Why is it unencyclopedic to list the cast of a notable work? What is encyclopedic? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bad faith nom in violaton of WP:POINT. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menon[edit]

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

No reference, unvarifiable content. Covered in Nair article. A Long list of unreferenced unvarifiable listing of people.Vvmundakkal 10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is related to a community which has a significant populace in India. The Menons have an interesting history as can be seen here. Moreover, I dont see that Menons are covered in the Nair article, I could not find even the word "Menon" in that article. The Menon article needs cleaning up but that is no reason for it to be deleted. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah, deleting this article is too drastic. There is no scope for falsehood of information in this article. As I said before references are few for small topics such as this, that doesn't mean every small article in WP without references should be deleted.B Nambiar 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was searching for some insight into the origins of Menons and this is the only article I found. I think we should keep this article and try enhancing the content instead of deleting it. -- Abhilash (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. I had previously closed this discussion as a snowball keep after only five "keeps" but the nominator asked me to re-open it. More "keep" votes were placed since then, so I'm calling this a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amish school shooting[edit]

Amish school shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia does not post news stories, regardless of how many front pages it appears on. The case is proven by only one citation after the week of the shooting, which is dated six months ago. Will (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Huh? It is incredible that people want to delete such an article, as I saw some memorial for it 1 year afterwards, like September 11. It rocked the Amish, and it rocked the world. Let's delete Columbine High School massacre if we delete this. Plus there's articles in 5 other Wikipedias. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAX. I don't see how this can be compared to Columbine, which was the deadliest school killing in fourty years (and had a long term impact), whereas this was a front-page story for one or two days. Inclusion in other languages does not mean notability here either. Will (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A mindless killer that kills what, 9 Amish girls isn't historical info? And Columbine wasn't the biggest shooting for fourty years; just eight. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 35 citations is not good enough to keep this from being deleted? And the incident is referenced in the overall Amish article for their modern history with the Amish. Finally, it is an example of what some non-Amish view them. I'm all astonishment that this is actually for deletion. If I may be so bold, I believe that because the nom is from the UK he does not fully understand the impact this event had in North America -- thus the AfD. Zidel333 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's perfect. Wikipedia has a self-admitted recentist and American bias which needs to be countered. A similar massacre would be Dunblane. Unlike the Amish shooting, that actually had impact that lasts ten years after the event. Will (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well It hasn't been 10 years yet, and I'm sure, when the 10 year period comes to an end, It will have impact. It sure had impact on the Amish community, anyway. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Will (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so your saying that a massacre has to be at least 10 years old to have an article? Neither Columbine or Virginia Tech and multiple others are. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From looking at WP:CSB ("Wikipedia has a self-admitted recentist and American bias which needs to be countered"), it seems to be more about expanding coverage of other locations and time periods than purging the encyclopaedia of recent or American topics. --A. B. (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I strongly disagree with this interpretation of WP:NOT#NEWS. This was a major event and it continues to reverberate. Just because the article cites contemporary sources doesn't mean there has not been continued discussion in the media since then. Here's a Google News search for the last 30 days; while hits many are irrelevant, I count several that are. Still more articles appeared in the rest of 2007.[40][41][42]. Then there's this book that's been published on the incident and at least two follow-up TV shows or documentaries in 2007.[43][44]. It would be a mistake to delete something like this from our encyclopedia, especially when the editors of the article have so carefully documented it. --A. B. (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's history shows 830 edits (166 in 2007) by 395 different editors, including a number of admins. None of these would seem to have thought this article should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. --A. B. (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, does this scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I count 35 citations, not 1. Also, think maybe we could move this to Nickel Mines Amish Shooting or something? Also, this is a notable incident, it did get national media coverage. ViperSnake151 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above comments. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as above Marjaliisa 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to have more than enough sources. I had originally SNOW closed this (stupid, stupid, stupid?) since there were four "speedy keep"s and a "strong keep", but the nom asked me to re-open, so I did. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm dubious as to how much good faith was involved in this nom. At best I think its a deep misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. This is pushing the definition of WP:NOT#NEWS to the absolute limit and then some. I quote from the policy the nom uses to justify his nomination; Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. This article does not come under any of those categories. Also try topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. You'd be hard pushed to argure this subject doesn't meet this criteria. Tx17777 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this was one of the biggest news stories of last year! This shouldn't have even been considered for deletion. From the information i'm getting about why this was considered for deletion now, it is a case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Doc Strange 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somebody snowball close this already. I'd do it myself but I've voted and already tried to snow-close this. Nominator has given me permission to re-close this as a snowball. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carl Roberts[edit]

Charles Carl Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia does not post biographies of people notable for only one event. The event in question does have a Wikipedia article, but that's articleworthiness is questioned Will (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X (System of a Down song)[edit]

X (System of a Down song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No real informaion is availabe, and it isn't notable. DurinsBane87 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup still encouraged, of course. Sandstein (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of fan fiction terms[edit]

Glossary of fan fiction terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Glorified dictionary. Uncited and ORish for the past seventeen months. Will (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:OR and is also cruft. Doc Strange 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:SYNTH, not a speedy candidate but just an unsalvageable list. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, but Recommend trimming, renaming and new, stricter guidelines for article in question. Here's the background you guys may be missing, as well as why I think it should be kept, but how it could be improved to bring it in line with WP policies and guidelines and make it useful again - or, failing that, a nice compromise:
I was part of the group that originally split this. I was not, however, the one who created the idea of the section, which already existed in another article. It was originally part of the main article for Fan fiction, and was split at the same time as the Legal Issues section, because both were taking up too much room in then-massive (and still really big) original article, and there was no other way to prevent them from taking up too much space in it without splitting. However, it is not entirely useless when taken for what it originally was before its not-wholly-perfect name change (more on that in a moment) - that is, as a subarticle of fan fiction that complements the original by filling in the gaps. Fan fiction is one of those things that happens to have attracted a community of massive size, which naturally almost immediately began gaining its own set of jargon that is in some cases (such as Mary Sue, which already has its own currently B Class article) is really strange to newcomers. Many of these terms, such as Mary Sue, Canon (fiction), and Slash fiction, embody notable concepts that have been the subject of serious academic and literary commentary and themselves already have articles on this encyclopedia, sometimes B class or better as is the case with Mary Sue. However, simply including the terms in separate articles without interconnecting them makes it much more difficult for people who are trying to get an overview of fan fiction-related terminology to actually get it, as it involves tracking down and opening countless articles, which may or may not be categorized in such a way as to make their relationship to fan fiction clear. It is my belief that there is a solution here, though.
It is NOT unsalvageable, just even difficult to salvage. If we renamed it to "list of fan fiction terms and concepts" or something very similar, and retained it merely as a convenient common list of terms which are notable enough to retain their own Wikipedia articles or which there are actual sources to support their notability, then it's perfectly salvageable, and hell, I'll even volunteer to do it, if you'll give me a couple of weeks (I have a couple of papers due this week, but after that I'm a lot freer). How does that sound? Runa27 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but if kept needs to be trimmed severely to remove commonplace terms such as "disclaimer" and BDSM which have exactly the same meaning within fandom as without. --Tony Sidaway 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Runa27's reasons listed above. Many of these terms have their own articles with good citations from literature resources. Nom is displaying evidence of W:IDON'TLIKEIT, and acting without Good Faith, so his AfDs are suspect. Zidel333 17:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Runa27. The BBC article listed in the external links can be used as a reliable source; not sure about the other link. --Fang Aili talk 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Runa. Article already has some sourcing though it need a lot of cleanup. Edward321 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments, responses, and update If cleaned up, the article will not violate WP:SYNTH, since SYNTH basically covers Original Research, which can be avoided simply by cutting out all uncited material or forcing cites for all uncited material, and in cases where something has its own article, doing no more than providing a brief summary of the content from said article and directing them to it (which is basically the point of these kinds of articles in the first place, and was really the original intent when we first split it).
I also don't think it violates the spirit or intent of WP:NOT#DICT, either, as per the way the policy's worded, since the proposed cleanup involves merely making it a more convenient way to find the important (i.e. notable) terms intimately related to the main subject from which this subarticle is meant to cover, not just provide a list of words. I'm pretty sure that in this case, WP:NOT#DICT does not apply, other than to tell us what we shouldn't allow the article to remain as (which is of course, still a good application!). After all, WP:IGNORE is meant to cover just such subtle occasions as this, where the line between "dictionary-like slang list" and "subarticle that allows the reader to get an overview of an aspect of its main article's subject with connections to a number of existing articles that might otherwise be difficult to find in a given context" becomes an important issue, but an equally important distinction to make. While I can certainly understand the NOT#DICT-related concerns, in this case, I'd argue this thing is closer to a character list for a long-running TV or book series than a "dictionary", in that it includes encyclopedic content that is for many useful, notable in the context of what it is meant to help cover, and conveniently organized for the reader... but would just add a bit too much visible length to the original article for the purposes of readability for those new to the subject (if you'd tried to read the older versions of fan fiction, you'd understand what I mean by "too much visible length". There's a reason we have suggested lengths for articles after which it's usually suggested that we break some sections off into subarticles, and fan fiction was a prime example). Breaking it down into subarticles on this kind of subject - about which there is massive amounts of information even when we do manage to cut out the non-notable crud - is extremely useful.
In other words, with due and earnest respect to WP:NOT#DICT, I would say this falls quite nicely under other policies that would allow for the cleaned-up version of this article, and does not even quite fit under even the second, "slang list" aspect of WP:NOT#DICT. If you don't believe me, I urge you to read WP:WIARM and consider both the purpose and function the future, cleaned up version of this article would serve in the context of its parent article: that is, to elaborate on a unique aspect of the main subject, providing a general, basic overview of said aspect which branches out into many sub-concepts which are considered independently notable, and which exist in many separate articles. In this case, the "aspect" is a combination of not just "slang terms", but also of notable subgenres, tropes and literary terms (such as Mary Sue, Canon and fanon, Slash fiction and Alternative universe, just to name a few) which have a uniquely strong fan fiction connection, or exist only in the genre of fan fiction. I'd like to point out at this point that the original section before it was moved from fan fiction also covered notable subgenres, which is indisputably notable in the context of the fan fiction article which parented this one, and which are currently absent from said parent article because - as you'll recall, I hope - this is a subarticle of fan fiction, so it is assumed that those wishing to know about that aspect of the subject can simply click that link to access an overview of them. I'd also like to point out that the Mary Sue article (to use one example) is best for explaining the concept of the Mary Sue to those readers who are actually looking for more information on the concept of the Mary Sue - not somebody who wants a simple, general overview of notable fan fiction terms and genres, for whom a one or two sentence description of the concept may well suffice. For someone wanting an overview of fan fiction terms, hunting down and wading through that many articles just to get something that they don't necessarily want every last detail on, is daunting and ridiculously inconvenient compared to simply providing a subarticle explaining the basics and providing a convenient jumping-off-point to other articles, should they want more information on any given one of the genres or such.
Again, in context I think this thing is both salvageable, and worth salvaging, and am willing to work with other editors on doing just that. I think one of the first steps is to make its status as a subarticle clearer, in addition to taking a machete to the OR and non-notable terms. I'll do that, the first chance I get. In the meantime, I've yanked a lot of the more dubious terms and misplaced terms from at least one or two sections, along with trimming to remove OR content and increase NPOV, along with tagging a lot of others for citation (ones I know are relatively notable at least, and thus entirely likely that there is a good source or three to back up their being featured in the article somewhere, but which do not apparently have their own separate articles and which DO naturally need cites if they're to stay). I encourage other editors to do the same, as well as to provide good cites for some of the article's content where they can. I'll probably have to stop editing really soon in order to finish work on a couple of papers, so I'd appreciate other editors chipping in on this. ^_^ Runa27 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In trying to wade through this enormous block of text, one point that leaps out is the comparison to a fictional character list. That is not a valid comparison. Words are not fictional characters. Glossaries are not character lists. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's several blocks of text. :P I'll space it better from now on, how's that sound? In seriousness, though... with all due respect, I must point out that this is what you apparently get for responding to something you've pretty much admitted you've skimmed. I won't cry "straw man", because I don't think it was intentional on your part at all and will definitely Assume Good Faith on this, but I feel the need to correct you on this one as you've apparently misunderstood and certainly misrepresented my meaning. The salient points (caps and bold text intended only for emphasis):
1.) You have misconstrued my comparison to a character list, by a lot actually. My comparison was phrased as it being "closer to" a character list "than" a dictionary word list, and NOT as a direct comparison, the latter being what you seem to have interpreted it as. This loose comparison was primarily to point out that this article is a subarticle that was never intended to be contextually separate from its parent article, and was instead spun off in a similar manner as the Legal Issues With Fan Fiction section and for mostly the same reasons: it was generally considered useful and appropriate to have in the context of the main encyclopedia article, but too long to NOT spin into a subarticle, given the massive size of the parent. You'll find this spinning off practice is common on Wikipedia, for the very reason that it makes articles better-organized and easier to load and read, and provides slightly less strain on our servers by reducing the main article's file size.
2.) People keep referring to this as a "word list" or "dictionary" and so on, and THIS IS SLIGHTLY MISLEADING. Yes, some of the content ended up somewhat along these lines over time (for which I apologize; I haven't been on WP as much as I would have liked), and the introduction misleadingly referred to "slang and jargon" (which is my fault, for which I apologize and which is something I'm fixing as we speak), but it was originally intended ONLY to provide an overview of the NOTABLE terms associated with fan fiction, along with NOTABLE SUBGENRES, to provide a more convenient way for readers to find them... overview + jumping-off point, if you will. In fact, the sub-genres section of the original article was actually PART of this section before it was ever split, and currently consists of a link to this article. Removing this article in its entirety (as opposed to severely trimming, cleaning up, renaming, reorganizing, merging, etc.) therefore removes all current reference in the main article to ANY SUBGENRES of the genre, which is BAD, since it would end up meaning the complete removal of an important aspect of the article, akin to removing references of subgenre divisions from the pages for science fiction, fantasy, romance, mystery, and so on.
I will rather emphatically suggest that this should have been a trim-and-merge request, or a rename or cleanup, etc., as opposed to deletion nom... though I suspect it would still, even if restricted to a list of subgenres, be long enough for some to insist on splitting it, anything's better than messing up the subgenre coverage in the parent article (quick and important note: Although there are plenty of fan fiction articles regarding unique subgenres and the like, there is no "Fan fiction terminology" subcategory in the cat tree, nor is there a subcategory for subgenres of fan fiction; there is only a very general "Fan fiction" cat, which while somewhat helpful, is not necessarily the best way of going about it). Runa27 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Runa.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NOT#DICT does not prohibit glossaries, as evidenced by Category:Glossaries. This is not original research and does not fail WP:NOT#DICT as long as the claims made are descriptive and not proscriptive; this is what mainly differentiates an acceptable source-based researched glossary from an original researched usage guide. DHowell (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not OR, why has it had the tag for seventeen months? Will (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Perhaps splitting of some terms into thier own pages? I find this page very helpful and informative. --Reiko-afterglow (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honkey rap[edit]

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

Hoax-like orphaned stubby article Will (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not only hoax-like but also very dumb. Coccyx Bloccyx 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honkey is a derogatory term for white people. That would be okay if it were a cultural phenomenon but it isn't, I could not find any real ghits and urban dictionary comes up with nothing. Definately WP:OR. Billscottbob 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense. Nobody of Consequence 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense/hoax. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a commonly used genre designation. Chubbles (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_3&oldid=1081099033"