Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

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. Addhoc (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad British teeth[edit]

Bad British teeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article currently consists of two sentences, and I frankly cannot see how it could be expanded much further. Wikipedia is not a collection of stereotypes, especially when it would be seemingly impossible for an article to become encyclopedic. Obviously, this information might be appropriate to mention in a pre-existing, more general article, if it is not already. Thus, any salvageable information should be merged to an undetermined article, and this article should be deleted. · jersyko talk 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would be good if those voting delete would also disclose if they are British subjects and/or if they have bad teeth. Ra2007 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amusing, but as the below pointed out, it's besides the point. That said, you wouldn't happen to be American, would you? ;) Alloranleon (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Strangely, this article is showing up as number 2 on google.[1] Wikipedia has friendlies on the inside at google, it appears. Ra2007 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never had a cavity and I'm an American. This is completely irrelevant, however. Whether this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles is the question. · jersyko talk 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough sourced material for a valid article. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No chance. Speedy close. TableManners U·T·C 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the many good reasons already cited. Gwernol 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As a Brit I was curious about the 'Time' reference cited. It dates from 1945, although this is not made clear in the article. There ARE issues about dentistry in the UK, mainly caused by funding issues regarding payment to dentists for NHS treatment, but mentioning that is going decidedly off-topic! EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A clumsy title. Little content. More useful and encyclopaedic would be an article on 'prevalence of dental caries by nation', perhaps with tables showing per capita expenditure on dental health.

Riversider2008 (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Riversider2008 (talk) 12:31, 4 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. Secret account 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kids Next Door operatives[edit]

List of Kids Next Door operatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of non-notable characters. --treelo talk 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with another article. Seems like a really long article for a show like Kids Next Door. -- Redfarmer (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see an AFD tag on the page, and not sure how to properly fix that, but you can't get anywhere without the proper tagging. Then I would vote to delete as original research with no possibility of wp:rs and wp:v Pharmboy (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I be damned, I did figure it out. Article is now properly tagged. Delete for wp:or that can't pass wp:v and has no wp:rs. Pharmboy (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basicaly nothing more then an orignal research collection of plot elements. The references are not even primary sources they are someones live journal page. Ridernyc (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of non-notable fictional characters does not belong on Wikipedia Alexfusco5 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above. Alloranleon (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I asked for the discussion, after some review I won't support keeping the article. I agree that there's a lot of useless and unsupported claims in the KND articles, and there are more that aren't notable (such as List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door, as one example). Instead of the various articles for the show, would a single article listing the recurring characters (operatives, villains, family, etc.) with pithy, supportable entries still be considered too much? Cuteswan (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for mentioning that, there's a whole bunch of location articles I wasn't aware of and will nominate them for deletion. As for the list of major and recurring secondary characters, I'm surprised there isn't a singular character list bringing together the three lists which exist now. Bring that into existence and it'll fulfil the criteria for lists of that sort. --treelo talk 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, adding my opinion to what appears to be WP:SNOWBALL, but I do want to just add that most of these appear to be what I like to call one-shots, characters introduced to build a single plot element, and never reappear. It seems to me that many shows have a "more than one appearance" consensus before listing characters, to avoid lists such as this. Yngvarr 23:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Late addition of another article which is also superfluous. --treelo talk 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't add things to a debate this far into the debate, make a new AFD for it. Ridernyc (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. That isn't fair to the author of the original page, nor the persons who have already piped in with a comment, as their opinions may differ for each article. A seperate afd should be drawn. Pharmboy (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done, removed the link and a separate afd nom has been made for the article. --treelo talk 16:59, 2 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash Commentary[edit]

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

Non-notable student newspaper. Unsourced. Violates WP:NPOV. Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It appeared someone was attempting to list this article for deletion before but listed it incorrectly. Upon looking at the article, I agreed it should be nominated and listed it myself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty unnotable, not to mention completely lacking in citations. The article really doesn't qualify for encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Alloranleon (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely violates NPOV and a quick look at the history of the page seems to reveal some sort of stupid pissing match between random people in the group. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Gerber (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is not that notable. The article is probably useful for people associated with Wabash College, but not for everybody. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough at this time for inclusion. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 3 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 no consensus, but has been improved. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension X (TMNT)[edit]

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

This article doesn't have any notability of its own and as such is just a repetition of the times that Dimension X showed up in various TMNT media. The Turtles are awesome, but non-notable articles that duplicate the content of the episode articles aren't, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wow, this is the day for articles in fantasy land. Not notable outside the context of the turdles (sic). Pharmboy (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pharmboy. Turdle power! -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep material goes across 3 media (comics, tv series and RPG). Agree needs sourcing though. Maybe 5 weeks isn't long enough over teh holiday period...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a notable location in a significant franchise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, I suppose, that it should be kept. That said, the article definitely needs citations and probably a bit of copy-editing. Alloranleon (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This apparently is a branch of a branch of a branch from the main article of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Seems cruel to ask editors to correctly find way to limit the size of an article by branching off sections then deleting them. Perhaps they could have done a better job but let's not punish them for trying. I see three books that cover the subject and will add them for future editor's use; I would think that DVD commentary or other routes of covering character development could also be found. Benjiboi 12:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And restore the Technodrome (which, just like Dimension X, is in the 1987 cartoon and the 1988 Archie TMNT Adventures Comics) article. When younger people hear the word Dimension X, they don't think of some early 1950's radio program that aired long before they were born, instead they think of the TMNT. The article has existed for years, and removing it does not makes Wikipedia better. I think Wikipedia can be about many things, both about fact and fiction. Just because you aren't interested in something, it doesn't mean that the entire world shares your opinion. It is like if I would run into the library and shout at them: "-Why do you have books about things I am not intesrested in, remove them". J 1982 22:03, 1 January 2008 (CET)
  • Comment - The location has asserted no independent notability outside of the turtles franchise, and just because the franchise is notable doesn't mean every location and character is. Notability is determined by referencing, and if you can't actually demonstrate some referencing, then there is no reason to keep this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure if the purpose of an article is to reinforce what young people expect, or to provide historical information relevent to the topic. Fictional worlds rarely have notability outside the context of their particular storyline, which seems is the standard for notability. Not sure where this is used outside of TMNT, and think Judgesurreal777 is spot on with this one. No one has *SHOWN* me any relevance the place has outside of TMNT, nor has the article itself. Pharmboy (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I tend to concur with Judgesurreal777 and Pharmboy. I was thinking, it had been mentioned in other tangentially related discussion, that we have articles on every species of animal, and so we should have articles on all fictional characters, and you sort of nod and think, okay I see the point. And then you think, okay, we have an article on the Flores Tiger, but would we have an article on the particular flowers it pollinates, by which I mean flowers x y and z which grow in meadow foo on the southern edge of the hamlet of a on the most Easterly island in Indonesia? Would we devote an entire article to the specific infrastructure of the wings of the butterfly, which one could do simply by studying a photograph of the butterfly and describing what one saw? I assert we would not. Therefore, should we do the same for fictional topics, basically, should we watch them and describe what we see, in ever decreasing circles of detail. Hiding T 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps going into such detail wouldn't seem needed but hardly means we can't have an article about the subject, ther's plenty of articles i find extremely tedious and trivial yet I recognize that sports fans have their heroes, opera buffs love their conductors and yes cartoon turtles have their fans as well. All articles should be written well but we also expect that that may not happen immediately. At a recent RfA the candidate, IMHO, correctly asserted that the readers and contributors of Disney and cartoon articles need a bit more patience and TLC then say experienced editors delving through nuances of Shakespearean prose. Is this article a treasure, maybe not; can it be improved upon, definitely. We can afford the bandwidth as well as the time to help push the editor(s) in the right direction. Benjiboi 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, whether we have an article on this or not is a matter for consensus. It is for the consensus of Wikipedians to decide where we say enough is enough. Were one to cut from the article all information that is unsourced, where would we then be left? Yes, there needs to be compromise from those who would exclude, but also from those who would include. Where do we draw the line in the sand? When is the right time to say, this article is full of original research, poorly written and lacking sources? And if now is the right time, when is the time to edit the article to improve it? Is that not also now? And what does the recent edit history show us? Hiding T 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe we have to say enough is enough, there is room in wikipedia for all manner of subjects and interests. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean a good article can't still emerge. And just because some subject seems terribly trivial doesn't mean it holds no fascination for many readers who looks to wikipedia for clear objective information on all manner of subjects from the history of coffee production to development of laws to sports to Star Trek episodes. Our goal should be focussed on building good articles which I still believe this could become. As part of that process less experienced editors should be encouraged to share their bits and bytes of knowledge that will help those of us who don't see the inherent value in such articles understand that such artwork was deeply influenced by NASA and space-exploration, for instance, or post-modern art movements. Yes the article needs work and yes it can be greatly improved but so can thousands of other articles which are considered plenty notable with just as few sources and just as many other problems. I suggest they should all be improved and editors encouraged to do so rather than have their work expunged altogether thus wasting all their thoughtful work and effort. Benjiboi 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should be in a rush to support less experienced editors in how to produce better quality articles rather than in a rush to erase less than fabulous articles thus likely repelling those same potentially valuable editors. Benjiboi 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree overly much with anything you say. Hiding T 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is not that notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Similar level of info to other TMNT location articles. The "repeated information" is not easily found, so this is a useful summary. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is useful and what about other article type reasons are considered non-arguments for AFDs. Pharmboy (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The user went further than that though. Also, that essay is ridiculously unhelpful. Simply stating it is not that notable is also an unhelpful argument. The debate is important, not each and every individual comment, and if a consensus of wikipedians decides that there is utility in keeping an article, it should remain. If consensus dictates that the encyclopedia is improved with this information within it, it matters little that that consensus is reached merely because of that utility. What matters is that that consensus is respected per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT. Hiding T 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, merge with the said duplicate episode article, otherwise delete. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Transwiki its been a while since I've watched TMNT, but I'm sure there was an episode or two based in Dimension X, any notable information should be merged into that episodes article, or, if such an article exists I'm sure theres an applicable Wikia available. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Several episodes were based a lot in Dimension X ("The Dimension X Story", "Planet of the Turtles", "Four Turtles and a Baby", "The Foot Soldiers are Revolting", "Convicts from Dimension X", "Shredder Triumphant", "Turtle Trek", "Divide and Conquer" and maybe some more), and much of the Archie TMNT Adventures Comics (Hirobyl, Morbus, Stump Asteroid). You can read more about it at the ninjaturtles website. J 1982 18:25, 6 January 2008 (CET)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Content available on request for transwiki purposes. Sandstein (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of lost ships of Starfleet[edit]

List of lost ships of Starfleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Over a year since its last AFD, no improvement, still not notable list cruft. All these ships are noted in the episodes they come from and in the individual articles on ship types and designs, so this is pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant. This is not Memory Alpha. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Redfarmer Pharmboy (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful way of correlating the multiple articles according to a relevant criterion.DGG (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing more then a plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep material of highly notable subject which goes across other articles. Agree needs sources tohugh cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG above. Also, length of time without improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguments for keeping it would better justify a category than a page: nothing about this page seems compelling. RJC Talk 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, and as Redfarmer pointed out, this should be left to Memory Alpha. Little encyclopedic value. Alloranleon (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, otherwise Transwiki to Memory Alpha or Beta. Nom states "No improvement" since this version? That is really not fair - editors have done a lot of deletion and a lot of referencing as well as tabulating. "Pure duplication" - the same could be said about any List or Category; but it is a collation of info from another specific point of view, and an alternative way to navigate the info in the encyclopedia. Multiple ways to navigate is one of the advantages of a Wiki over a paper encyclopedia; don't throw it away. As for notability, the concept of lost ships in Star Trek is certainly sufficiently notable, and the list provides additional context. Having satisfied that, primary sources are sufficient. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely in-universe content, no redeeming realworld critical analysis or commentary <eleland/talkedits> 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well referenced and making it a "category" would lose information. MarsRover (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need a list of 'fictional starships' in the Star Trek! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An seemingly arbitrary selection of starships belonging to a fictional universe, with no evidence of notability of topic. Wholly primarily sourced. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - re. Fayenatic's comment: I see no assertion or citation for "the concept of lost ships" being notable. Even if that were the case, the article says nothing about the "concept," its development, etc. It's just a list of plot points. --EEMIV (talk) 06:14, 3 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order[edit]

List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely redundant to List of Futurama episodes which not only gives the original airdate of each episode but the reason why the episodes are not listed in broadcast order. A sortable table (if possible) would be a much better solution for people who need to be able see the order in which the episodes originaly aired. As it is the extra article is likely just going to be confusing to anyone trying to find out about the series and is a completley unnecessary duplicate. Guest9999 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article per above and simply create another column on List of Futurama episodes which lists the broadcast number of the episode. This is so much simpler I'm at a loss as to why they didn't do it this way. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete topic is already adequately covered elsewhere. Pharmboy (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nom: a sortable list would be much better than an article like this Doc Strange (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RJC Talk 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad news, nobody! Delete. Pointless list. Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The production order vs. broadcast order is important but this can very easily be incorporated into the normal list using a sortable wikitable. Brad (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless list! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Guest9999's recommendation. Axl (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:46, 5 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 merge to The West Wing (TV series)#Foreign, same for Qumar. Done. Neıl ☎ 11:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Kundu[edit]

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

This article is just plot repetition and OR without notability or referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with The West Wing#Foreign as it is not notable in itself. Would also suggest doing the same thing with Qumar. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Isn't notable outside the context of the show. Pharmboy (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and Qumar into Fictional countries in The West Wing, following the precepts laid down in The Buranda Protocol. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and Qumar with The West Wing#Foreign, without prejudice for re-creation if sources are found to establish out-of-universe notability. --Hnsampat (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and Qumar into Fictional countries in The West Wing
  • Keepprovisionally. Would feature prominently in any book/commentary on the West Wing. I wonder if one's been written. Notable enough. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You're suggesting that this is "notable enough" based on a book that you're not sure even exists? Brad (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I suspect and calculate that as a thinking person's drama series which had very good ratings and much discussion for a few years, there will be some 3rd party commentary of some sort. have seen huge amounts of material on more obscure series/films. Ever been into a university library cinematic arts/pop culture section? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 2 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 USERFY to User:SharkD/Gold Box gameplay, per dicussion below, and DELETE resulting redirects. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Box gameplay[edit]

I love gold box as much as the next person, but this article is really a game guide or play manual. wikipedia is very clearly not the place for this. This was raised on the talk page by a couple of different people in the past, but nothing was previously done. There is already an article on the gold box series, and any encyclopedic content can be moved there if it exists.. Crossmr (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wow, you weren't joking. It really is simply a game guide, and with no sources to boot. -- Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RJC Talk 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some information into Gold Box --Sivak (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This type of articles should be deleted. No source! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:NOT a strategy guide. No indication of notability outside of fans of the game; no cited sources at all; lots of "See also" wikilinks that look more like a walled garden than like coverage of a significant part of the videogame hobby; and nobody has yet found sources to cite. Barno (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've moved the article to my userspace in order to rewrite it so it's a (much shorter) description of gameplay, not a guide. Then, I'll merge it with Gold Box. SharkD (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can an article be moved to User Space? I would like to preserve the edit history and talk page. SharkD (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a temporary thing intended for work, yes.--Crossmr (talk) 17:12, 5 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 Redirected to Characters_in_Austin_Powers#Villains, merge at will. Pastordavid (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa (austin powers)[edit]

Mustafa (austin powers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article appears to have no notability of its own as established by reliable sources, and just repeats the plot of parts of the first two Austin Powers movies. As such, it is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compo (Serbian company)[edit]

Compo (Serbian company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Only source is the company's web site. Orphaned since 2006. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NN company. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete State owned factory with no notability. Pharmboy (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I only moved this particular article to one with a more specific name to make room for a more notable company with the same name, Compo Company which was Canada's first independent Canadian record company which eventually evolved into Universal Music Canada. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:42, 2 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 keep. Consensus is that Noroton has done enough to justify keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn valley elementary[edit]

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

The earlier AfD on this article was aborted by a CSD A7 speedy deletion. DRV overturned, on the rationale that no CSD applied. Still, delete, as lacking reliable sources. Xoloz (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge verifiable information (if any) with main school district article and redirect. Past Wikipedia consensus states that articles on schools can never be speedily deleted unless they are clearly bad faith contributions. Always take questionable school articles to AfD, don't speedy or PROD tag them. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a big difference between Speedies and Prods. I urge the continued use of Prods. The handful of editors who work hard on fixing up every school article in danger of deletion have hearts that are in the right place, but are not numerous enough to stop the proliferation of "permastubs." A Prod tag will get the creator of the article to either fix the article, merge it, or accept its deletion. Most of these stubs can be recreated in no time anyway, since they are so short. My system, of adding a merge-school tag, letting it soak for a while, and if nobody moves, eventually prod tagging a few, is my way of improving the overall quality of articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mr Senseless. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SCHOOL (note this is not official policy yet). High Schools are automatically notable, lower schools require something else to make them notable. Pharmboy (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to School District 44 North Vancouver. BlueValour (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm currently working on adding sources to it. Not sure yet if I'm going to pass the WP:N standard. Editors may want to wait until I finish with it after tonight. So far I've found what I consider to be one source with significant information and three relatively minor sources. Stay tuned (unless you just prefer to delete all elementary school articles). Noroton (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to say that I'm not enthusiastic about school articles but there's now too much sourced information to merge. The school being based in a notable building and the notable alumnus tips me over into a keep. BlueValour (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I found the sources offering significant information on the school that I wanted, and in addition found numerous sources giving minor bits of information. One source: John Goodlad, who Publishers Weekly calls "one of the most influential educators in North America in the modern era (he founded the University of Washington’s Center for Educational Renewal and served as dean of UCLA’s Graduate School of Education)"[2] was a student-teacher there and was enchanted by the place in the 1940s. The other significant source gave information on the former school building, which calls it a significant piece of architecture in that area. I think these sources meet WP:N. Noroton (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree completely with Noroton's strong keep rationale. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article now contains far too much well-sourced content for a merge into School District 44 North Vancouver to make any sense. --Stormie (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice work, Noroton. --W.marsh 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good work Noroton, just goes to prove schools really do require a full AfD process. RMHED (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It's a very well written article, but at the end of the day, it doesn't meet the basic notability requirements. No significant coverage from independant sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, The article is padded with unencyclopedic tidbits such as the creation of a student council. The "greenness" of the building is encyclopedic, but could have been handled on a district page. I would not like to see many more articles like this one. Perhaps the Schools Project could work out a protocol for merging a group of school articles into a district page, and then make a weekly collaboration in which a sprawling mass of weak individual pages is turned into a great district page. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to Brewcrewer and AnteaterZot: The "greenness" is a designation by a foundation that has nothing to do with the building but with student projects. Adding encyclopedic information to an article is not "padding", and encyclopedic information isn't a "tidbit". I tried to be very honest in my description of what I was adding, not making major claims about minor additions and describing what I judge significant coverage that meets WP:N. WP:N could be met, by the way, by a significant number of minor sources as well. Noroton (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creation of a student council at an elementary school simply is not encyclopedic. The greenness of student projects is less notable than a building. This trend of finding every mention of a school may lead us to a school article in which a game of Duck Duck Goose is cited because it appeared on a local TV show. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, whatever leads to a better understanding of the school is encyclopedic. What you especially want in any encyclopedia article is information that describes the essence of the subject (it essentially educates children in this community) and what is particular to this institution that makes it different from others (the building, the atmosphere that made it a special school in the 1940s). And for both reasons, the green projects and student council, both unusual in an elementary school, are good additions. Your objections really don't seem to be to this elementary school article -- your objections are to having any articles on elementary schools that are nothing more than elementary schools. That's neither Wikipedia policy or consensus. By the way, I'm not replying here out of anger or anything, but because discussing these points is valuable for all of us to think about.Noroton (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's marginally encyclopedic. That why I said "Neutral". My concern is having thousands of individual pages to the detriment of well constructed district pages. Consolidation onto town or district pages allows for better editorial oversight, and allows the users of Wikipedia to understand the school in context. In some cases, people choose to buy a home based on what school their kids will go to. A district page is more valuable than an individual page, most of the time. Why? Because most individual elementary school pages are either "permastubs", puff pieces written by the principal's secretary, vandalism magnets or WP:SCH#WNTI. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; solid article, meets all relevant content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep excellent work Noroton. Hut 8.5 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Elementary schools are not notable. There are many, many thousands of schools with equal history and equally little to say. The allegations that this school's programs are unusual or exceptional are not true. Many other schools host similar programs. The history section of this page contains mere trivia. (No matter how well sourced, a person saying that "It's a joy to work here" is not encyclopedic content.) No objection to a merge and redirect to a page about the municipality the school supports but there is not enough here to support an independent article. Rossami (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it was one of the top education experts in North America who said that, and he didn't just say it, he gave some details. The atmosphere of the school in the 1940s is not trivia, it's potentially very important to alumni still alive today. I don't want to overstate the value of this citation, but it's neither trivia nor trivial. If you believe elementary schools are not notable, your disagreement is with WP:N and WP:ORG, which imply they and nearly every other subject can be notable, given solid enough sourcing. Noroton (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of people like to read about trivia. It's still trivia. No change of opinion. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep per expansion/sourcing.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be notable enough. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this school, as an exception to the proposed policy. It is notable in its own right. JERRY talk contribs 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think if you want to change the policy it is best done on the talk of the policy page. Pharmboy (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment I thik you misunderstood my post. I am not attempting to change any policy by my comments here. I am stating that a proposed policy is on the block for consideration, and I am on public record as backing this policy, which as a general rule would dictate that elementary sschool articles be redirected to the appropriate district. I was stating that this is the kind of elementary school which should be kept as an exception to that proposed policy. I am not attempting to extend the policy discussion here to get it ratified. I just felt the need to explain the difference between what I have said elsewhere about this class of school. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content lacks a single instance of notability. Húsönd 16:59, 4 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. Secret account 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lakes Mall[edit]

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

This article was proded but removed by author. The article reflects no notability. There are no reliable sources to verify notability. The mall no longer exists. JodyB talk 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mall indeed no longer exists, but at one time it was an important commerical center in Twin Falls, Idaho and the larger Magic Valley region - particuarly in the 1970s and early 1980s - and therefore historically noteworthy in the area. Because the mall's demise largely precedes the Internet as we know it, online information to this effect is admittedly scarce, and it would most likely require citations from sources such as local newspaper archives. However, while it needs work, I do believe it merits a stub presence. Even so, it is noted by third party sources as a "cultural feature" (Link) and a landmark (Link), even though this information is somewhat outdated.
Also, note the established category "Defunct shopping malls in the United States" at present contains 72 articles, so an article such as this is not an isolated occurrence by any means. --Faustus37 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know whether this mall satisfies our notability standards such as WP:ORG but the comment that it no longer exists implies that notability is temporary, which is not in accord with the policy on notability WP:N. We do not delete articles on buildings, organizations, people, or other entities because they no longer exist, if they were ever notable. Edison (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I assure you there are plenty of references in secondary sources such as back issues of The Times-News et al. If these sources went back further online, they would already be cited. A visit to the library here should put any WP:ORG concerns to rest. While not nationally noteworthy, the Blue Lakes Mall was a big deal in southern Idaho in its day; anyone over 30 who lived here for any amount of time would remember it well. --Faustus37 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources. A Google News search turns up only three articles, all of which only mention the mall in passing, and main Google hits are incredibly sparse. Neither source provided by Faustus37 (talk · contribs) seems reliable either. All malls were notable to their regions at some point or another, and many malls have been torn down for big box stores -- therefore, I see nothing that makes this one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable mall, no reliable sources. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned, the sources are scarce on the Internet due to its age. This is an old-school library research project. Google is not the final arbiter of importance. --Faustus37 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fred Meyer is the anchor although it's not a formal shopping center. There are several other smaller shops on the former Blue Lakes Mall property. We're talking an absolute bare minimum of 250,000 square feet here. Definitely noteworthy in a city of 40,000 --Faustus37 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that a mall was demolished to make way for one store is not so outrageous, given the shift in retail scale that has occurred over the past 50 years...how about when entire neighborhoods are demolished for a skyscraper/office complex (as in NYC) or for a sports venue (as in London)? Does this automatically make the destroyed neighborhood non-notable?--starfarmer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per notability and existence of reliable sources. Records of this sort are important for historical understanding of other sources.--starfarmer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just another run of the mill small mall. At best, merge anything of note into the city article. Fails WP:V. WP:RS and WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:41, 3 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. Kurykh 06:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyruko[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable puzzle, first published in December 2007. Possible COI here as well, as the article's creator is User:PyrukoOne. A Google search seems to result only in the official site, lots of book-selling sites, and lots of bizarre sites that seems to list Google search results or something. I originally speedied the page on the 28th, although at the time I was under the false impression that the list of things at WP:CSD#A7 were example items, rather than a complete list of article types, so my speedy was rightfully declined, and replaced with some tags [3], to which I added {{coi}}. Earlier today, the coi and importance tags were removed, along with the unreferenced tag, which was replaced by two first-party refs [4]. As I don't feel the importance or notability of Pyruko has been established, I am nominating its article for deletion. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Article fails to assert notability of any kind. Pharmboy (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable with no sourcing. Note that the book was published through Authorhouse, a print on demand service. It smells slightly of spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 3 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 keep, and consider moving to Criticism of NASCAR per naming conventions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Criticism[edit]

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

Much of it is Unsourced, it contains large amounts of Original Research, and blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article also Violates this Guideline here: Wikipedia:Content forking Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as a POV fork. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename it's not a POV fork, it's a page split. See NASCAR#Criticism and WP:SPINOUT. It should be moved to Criticism of NASCAR to keep in line with naming conventions, but the content is perfectly acceptable - Koweja (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I read that part and DOn't get how it passes this part here: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." This article here clearly fails that has the NPOV issues were not resolved and therefore it is a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Koweja captures how I view this. I assure you this was NOT a POV fork. I have no investment in any of that content; I pulled the content out of the NASCAR article to tighten the NASCAR article up (and made that note at the time, both in the NASCAR article talk and in the NASCAR Criticism talk, which I established at the time I created it), not to delete the content _ which is appropriate. While I didn't know what that was called when I did it, Kaweja shows me here that this is a split, ala WP:SPINOUT. As to the concern about the article being unsourced, there are 17 references in this article, with footnotes for almost every section. Most wikipedia article could stand more reference, and this article may be no exception there, but it surely isn't unreasonable and doen't meet the grounds for a deletion ("...cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources...", "...all attempts to find reliable sources...have failed", etc.). If anything, this concern should be met with the appropriate tag. - Thaimoss (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (follow-up) Additional agreement with Koweja regarding the naming. The section in the original NASCAR article was (I believe) simply "Criticism". I chose "NASCAR Criticism" without adequate consideration of any possible convention. In fact, believe it or not, I was thinking about this while out on errands today, and thought to myself "I think I named that wrong". Criticism of NASCAR is suggested by Koweja, and is surely more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaimoss (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep with keeping only whatever can be adequately sourced or merge back into main article NASCAR. Under no circumstances should this article be completely deleted without its content being accessible to those contributors who are to fix this article. People who had an ax to grind with NASCAR went crazy in the section. This section was WAY too long when it was part of the NASCAR article - past the point that it made the article unbalanced. Spliting was a reasonable way to deal with that problem. The final judge as to what content should remain should be decided by consensus at WikiProject NASCAR. Royalbroil 05:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article covers both internal and external criticism, and is relevant to fans and non-fans alike. This business about "POV forking" is a red herring: at present, there are no unresolved NPOV disputes that I'm aware of. Furthermore, the content which was spun off was replaced with an NPOV summary. The content is too long to merge back into the main article and outright deletion is uncalled for. Rename if necessary but don't delete. Simishag (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into NASCAR, trimming it by two-thirds. Wikipedia guidelines discourage "Criticism of XXX" articles unless the criticism itself was widely reported and discussed by multiple independent sources. I don't believe that these various complaints have been more widely covered than "criticism of NHL", "criticism of Heinz", and any other public organizations; certainly not comparable to Criticism of Wal-Mart. Instead I see this article as giving undue weight to one side, since there's no "Wonderful things people say about NASCAR" article. As for the POV-fork argument, most of the assertions aren't that some aspect of the sanctioning body is proven dangerous by facts; they're things like "Danny Drivefast didn't like the Car of Tomorrow at its first race" and "Connie Commentator thinks they throw phantom-debris cautions to group the cars", i.e., POV. Barno (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasonable case of splitting a criticism section into a separate article. NPOV is not a problem as long as all the sources are reliable. If there are well-sourced apologetics, they can be added. Disputed unreferenced criticisms can be removed, but it will still leave enough material to justify keeping as its own article. I concur that it should be renamed to Criticism of NASCAR per convention. —dgiestc 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems reasonably well sourced and is a legitimate split of the main article. --rogerd (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject NASCAR was informed of this ongoing discussion on 31 December 2007. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 8 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 Keep per consensus. Contentious unsourced material was removed and references have been added. (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle K[edit]

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

Contains claims, sourced only to a blog, that the organization's kashrut standards and/or supervisory abilities may not be reliable. This is a WP:BLP violation affecting both religious reputation in the Jewish world and commercial reputation in the business world for the individuals named in the article. I understand that by arbcomm decision summary deletion is a standard route for such a case. However, both because the organization and the rumors involved are widely known in the Jewish world, and because reliable sources for the claim may exist, I am electing in my discretion to bring the matter to AfD. If there are reliable sources, everything should be kept. Shirahadasha (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is pure OR as it stands, with vague terms "It is possible this issue has been resolved in recent years." and the like. Doesn't seem to pass the sniff test for NPOV either. Pharmboy (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and source There are indeed controversies, they are reported in the Jewish media, & they are notable. But the article needs to show this. DGG (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep see DGG. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in current form. I think that it is reasonable to use the web sites of major corporations who use the service (e.g. [5], [6], and [7]) as third-party reliable sources. However, the controversy stuff must not be reinserted until valid sources can be found. Blog posts and message board threads won't cut it. *** Crotalus *** 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it has been cleaned up to removed any problem. We just be careful to expand it slowly and sourcefully (that is not a word - but I like it). Jon513 (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is (a) a known Hechsher symbol, and (b) a legitimate bone fide known kashrut supervision organization run by Orthodox rabbis, see its website at http://www.trianglek.org/ . While some may consider it to be more lenient than the better known established American OU Kosher certification or OK Kosher Certification, it is definitely on the radar and relied upon by many Orthodox Jews. (c) The article is only a stub at this stage, and all it says now is: "Triangle K is a kosher supervision and certification organization under the leadership of Rabbis Jehoseph H. and Aryeh R. Ralbag. Its hechsher is a black letter "K" enclosed in a white equilateral triangle. It supervises a number of major brands, including Wonder Bread, Hebrew National, Minute Maid, and Sunny Delight" which is fine for now. Give it more time, like all stubs, to be built up. Finally, (d) If there is or was unreliable or slanderous information take it out (as someone did recently [8]), but that does not justify the nominator's hard to understand alarmism in this instance. IZAK (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At the time I put the article up for AfD, the controversial information was most of the article. "Stubbify" would have been a reasonable outcome and I could have done it myself, but I wanted to see if there were reliable sources on the controversy that perhaps I hadn't been able to find. Since the article has now been stubbified, perhaps we should give the AfD a few more days to see if people returning from holiday can dig up some sources. Otherwise, I'd be happy with this outcome as it is. I'm aware of rumors about the organization, and I was hoping we could find sources that would put these rumors to rest one way or the other. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A brief Web search showed reliable sources for the fact that Triangle K is the Kosher certifier for several major corporations (I think the corporations' own websites qualify for this purpose). But I was not able to find any reliable sources about the alleged controversy. Perhaps this was discussed in Orthodox Jewish print publications, but, if so, those publications are not available online. Someone else with access to such materials would have to find this. *** Crotalus *** 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as re-written. Moderately well-known kosher supervision and certification organization, with a number of high-profile clients. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I look down my nose at anyone who eat "Triangle K", I must concede it is notable, despite my better instincts. Lobojo (talk) 23:39, 4 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 keep due to extensive cleanup and citing during the AFD. Non-admin closure, backlogged. Serpent's Choice (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biltmore Square Mall[edit]

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

Another run of the mill small US mall. The article has existed for over 30 months without any assertion of notability or expansion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fail WP:N (primary sources only help for WP:V) due to no third party sources. It could be speedy deleted for no claims of notability, the entire article is just the location of the mall and some of the stores in it. Nothing to seperate this from any other mall (there are 4 malls within 15 minutes of my house, not counting strip malls or plazas). TJ Spyke 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was nominated for speedy under A7 and it was declined. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder why, it clearly qualifies for speedy deletion. TJ Spyke 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only source in article is primary, and a search for other sources online turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa. Keep per addition of sources, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mr Senseless (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of notability. I looked through the first ten pages of a Google search and found nothing beyond advertisements (except for this interesting entry on deadmalls.com). Has no bearing on this discussion, just thought it was interesting that some people out there spend a lot of time debating on whether or not a mall is in dire financial straits enough to be included on some website. Wait a minute... Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was the subject of annexation, and resistance failed. Multiple online sources available for this centre.[9] This is an easy one to find online Cites for. I cannot see how "and a search for other sources online turned up none" can be said in good faith. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not arguing that it exists, Exit2DOS, we're arguing that it has no notability. Of course a Google search turned up evidence of its existence. The exact link you give shows that, well, there's a mall, and I suppose someone bought/sold it, which presumably happens to all malls. There is nothing inherently notable about this particular conglomeration of storefronts. Tanthalas39 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Managment and Tenants resisting annexation isnt notable? The fact that locals got up enough gumption to buy and save a dying mall isnt notable? I believe it is. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, that's why these debates exist. I cleaned up your recent additions to the article. I have no doubt that everything was in good faith, but it's just a regretful fact that if there are a half dozen typos in an edit series, including the name of the article subject itself, it won't be taken quite as seriously. At any rate, I personally still find this non-notable, but perhaps other people will find it otherwise. Tanthalas39 (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I know my spelling isnt always perfect, and I tend to use English English :P Its a shame that others dont bother to improove the article as well. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:11, 4 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 Withdrawn -Redfarmer (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (CSI)[edit]

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

Additionally, the following articles are being included for the same reason below:

These articles are all merely synopsises and trivia for each individual episode of the first season of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation with no references or reason for notability. Additionally, there is already a list of season one episodes of CSI here. There's eight seasons worth of these but I'm too tired to do them all at once. Redfarmer (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd tend to swing toward keep on the pilot. I'd suspect that there should be enough external coverage to warrant inclusion. However, I'm not going to go thru each episode listed in this AFD. At this stage, I'd suggest either you become WP:BOLD and redirect each individual episode to the seasonal episode listing (if one exists); or open open discussion on the relevant project. Yngvarr 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. These are merely plot summaries and don't provide anything useful that isn't already in the list of episodes. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what your reasoning behind your keep is. Wikipedia:Television episodes basically says the same thing as I said (and WP:NOT#PLOT says): that television episode articles cannot be merely a retelling of the plot synopsis, which all of these articles are. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect Yes, they are only plot, that's because they were made a long time ago, which means there is almost no info available. It's almost imposible to create a production section for each episode (Lost style) because almost every one of them has been shot on a closed set and, because it's not a serial, sources for "reception" sections are very, VERY hard to find (except when something big happens, Ex. Goodbye and Good Luck (CSI episode)) . They are stubs, i agree, but i'm faithfull that someone will eventually buy one of those "making of CSI" books and expand them. You really want to delete 175 CSI articles and discourage this X person that will one day want to expand these articles? because what about ALL of the Seinfeld episode articles then? none of them (see here, here, here) has more than a plot and trivia. Actually, almost every show that i can think of has most of it's episodes in the same state than CSI's (first ones i clicked: Heroes, The Sopranos, The Simpsons). I choose to ignore WP:NOT#PLOT.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I was really feeling after I made the nomination like I should have posted something first, hence why I posted on Wikiproject. Give me a few minutes and I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Redfarmer (talk) 01:09, 1 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 Redirect to Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, merge at will. Pastordavid (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quiche-eater[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Not worth a stand-alone article seperate from Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it is still not fixed. Ra2007 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, somehow, people seem to think that articles about neologisms are more appropriate than well-established words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so we could quite easily have articles about the etymology and usage of words much more well known and commonly used than this, but these would fail WP:NOT making this even less notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Twinkle failure corrected, article is AFD tagged now. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article Real Men Don't Eat Quiche - was a big deal at the time and popularly quoted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to book article. The major claim to notability of this phrase is probably application against Walter Mondale in a variety of bumper stickers, but they were often variants such as "Mondale Eats Quiche" instead of this word itself. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep. This reports a cultural phenomenon whose degree of notability may not be immense but is enough to get mentioned here. If we had a shortage of disk space maybe this is what we'd be cutting, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or (less enthusiastically) merge, per Hardy points. I heard this term in a data structures course, and I consider it borderline jargon in computer programming subcultures. Tparameter (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still confuses me as to why people think articles on lesser-known words are somehow more worthy of encyclopedia articles than well-known words such as disappointment (which I'm beginning to think shouldn't have been deleted now).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, did I imply that I embraced such a belief? I never commented on "disappointment", its proposed deletion, or its comparative worthiness relative to "quiche-eater". However, it might be interesting to examine the various differences between the two, which may or may not illuminate the comparative worthiness of each; that is, if comparing the worthiness is the ultimate goal. If this is the actual source of your confusion, I can consider the comparison and comment on it - but this is likely not the proper forum. Tparameter (talk) 06:09, 2 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. Kurykh 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hogger[edit]

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

Contested prod, so AfD'd.

Non-notable fictional character. Carados (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Although, if there is no deletion review, speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. ~ twsX · TC · Typo-Warning! ~ 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is an easy one, not notable outside the game and this looks more like providing info about him (wp not a game guide) by telling what level can defeat, blah blah blah. Speedy applies. Pharmboy (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Under which criterion? A7 doesn't apply to fiction published outside the web. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that the Hogger page is valid for Wikipedia. Hogger is a very popular character on the the MMORPG Computer Game World of Warcraft and I feel he should be granted his own wikipedia article. Cosmic Gardener (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors' personal opinions of popularity are irrelevant to this discussion. We do not base decisions on such subjective criteria, here at Wikipedia. What you need to show exist are multiple published works from independent sources that document this subject in depth. That is an argument that would actually hold water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of sources here: WOWinsider articles on Hogger. Or this page which has Hogger as the name of a movement. Whether they amount to notability as such, I don't know, but it's reasonable to say there is some interest in Hogger in the World of Warcraft that has been covered on at least some WOW news sites. This does, I think amount to third-part coverage, though the question of depth may vary enough that I don't know the answer. However, it at least behooves people to look, don't you think? The article could, I think be improved by noting this interest. Perhaps somebody might wish to help the original author by doing so? 68.101.22.132 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that Hogger has zero notability OUTSIDE of WoW. He hasn't entered popular culture in anyway outside the game itself, which means it is only an in universe character. Jedi have reached outside the Star Wars series, for example. Hogger has not. Pharmboy (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that is a problem, since there are people who are writing on the subject of Hogger. If it's specialized WOW or MMO resources, this doesn't mean the content isn't verifiable or that Hogger isn't notable within the WOW community. As a community of several million people, that's quite large enough to present arguments as to being able to present a case for notability. So, maybe you should give your thoughts on the coverage within the links instead? That might be more helpful than this argument which relies on what weight one gives sources. Sure, they're not the New York Times, but they're also not the Church social letter either. I agree with you so far as the level of him, and what you need to defeat him, but as the links I provided show, there's MORE to the story. Since the article is relatively new, I don't see that as problem. Just an opportunity to improve it. As an example, I might point out, Leeroy Jenkins who is just a player created character in the game. Yet due to a movie, there's an article about him. Do you think a similar article might be made from sources like the ones I easily found? And I didn't even look for in-print ones so maybe there's a Ballad of hogger out there too. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a minor enemy character in World of Warcraft, who appears once as a mission, and is in no way notable. He isn't even notable in WoW other than as a named character even taking the fluff into consideration. Ben W Bell talk 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With respect to anon's comments above, I'll be convinced about notability if the general gaming press has non-trivial coverage of this character. Marasmusine (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. While I'm highly doubtful that notability can be asserted for such a minor character, if the anon above can provide such sources, then I might change my stance. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't actually care enough to go looking for more sources, I wouldn't have bothered looking for those if I hadn't recalled them. Of course, I'm surprised nobody has offered the idea of putting information on Wowwiki instead. Guess I'll have to do so. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, you don't have to. In any case, tranwiki is not an option considering that WoWWiki has an article on it already. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant more as advice to the contributing editor actually, as the article on Hogger there could use some work. Sorry if you misunderstood the intention. 68.101.22.132 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability, truly hilarious source list.Kww (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced article concerning a character in a game played by millions, i.e. notable to millions of people worldwide. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment millions sounds like a big number to me. Pharmboy (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable in-game, but not generally. Jfire (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor boss with no serious coverage in reliable secondary sources, non-notable. WoW Wiki's article = right info, right place. Someone another (talk) 21:22, 3 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. This has indeed become a well-sourced article. What is missing, as noted by many commentors below, is reliable sources that directly attest to notability. There is a great deal out there written by the subject, but very little written about the subject, or his influence. The two published books do not seem to be by large, nationwide publishers. I am not WP:SALTing the article, as their is no bias against recreating should reliable evidence of notability be found. Pastordavid (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Felton[edit]

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

I do not believe that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable for inclusion based on third party reliable resources and would like input from the community about whether he meets the bar for notability This controversial journalist has published articles in various newspapers, websites, and has even published a book, but there are very few independent sources about him or his work. For example, I can find no independent reviews of his book. There have been a few mentions of him in the media: one, an Ezra Levant opinion piece in the National Post , calls him a "notorious anti-Semite" in passing, [10] and an article in the UBC's School of Journalism magazine mentions him being "silenced" at the Courier.[11] According to the subject he has won some (mostly provincial?) awards for journalism Talk:Greg_Felton Is this enough to be notable? I myself think not.

It should also be noted that the article has been created (twice) by Felton's detractors, deleted as an attack page following complaints to OTRS, blanked by an IP associated with the subject after its recreation [12] and has been the subject of editing wars including the addition of edits that have violated WP:BLP and WP:OR , and edits by the subject of the article that violate WP:COI. It has been the subject of posts to WP:BLPN Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Greg_Felton, and a request for comment based on BLP concerns at the Canadian wikipedians board [13] The article seems to be a magnet for editors who are critical of his views and is currently semi-protected as a result. The present article appears to be to fall afoul of multiple WP:BLP policies, including too much of the subject's own self-published material given the length of the article, unbalanced, including 'quote mining' by his detractors of Felton's more controversial views, though an attempt has been made to balance these by a neutral editor.

In the end, however, these issues are secondary to the overall issue about whether it is possible and/or desirable to write a WP:NPOV article about someone for whom there are so few third party reliable sources, and therefore whose notability is so questionable. Over to you for your opinions. Slp1 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"End of AFD" summary by nominator This AFD has succeeded in uncovering a few additional secondary sources about this columnist, including some short articles from Edmonton newspapers in 2004 which mention Felton as part of a made complaint by B'Nai Brith and its outcome. An additional student newspaper article has been found, as has a reference in a book by the interesting (and probably highly unreliable) David Icke, and a couple of radio interviews which most editors seem to see as primary sources. Felton's notability (except possibly for one or two events in his life) appears marginal at best. As noted above, the article has been created multiple times (3 times, I now believe) by a detractor, who introduced dubious and even false information,[14] and who is now arguing for deletion. Its subject has also edited it, though to my mind his recent edits (typos, removing incorrect information about a book) appear to fall within WP:COI guidelines.[15][16] As alluded to above, and as shown by this AFD and recent article editing, this article is often more of a battleground, soapbox as well as a purveyor of original research via the "quote" sections. I concur with User:EdJohnston below that there are very few useable secondary resources in addition to limited evidence of Felton's notability, and that this needs to be borne in mind given the the past history of attack pages, POV and COI editing, and the need to maintain an accurate, informative, NPOV BLP article. --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep delete - much as I may disagree with the person described in the article, he seems to be notable enough (a book, occasional newspaper coverage, etc.). The editing wars are not really relevant in deciding whether to keep him or not. My vote is to weak keep, as the article in the current state indeed is not fulfilling some of Wikipedia standards. Pundit|utter 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC). All in all the person is on the very verge of notability, if at all. In the current state we all agree the article does not adhere to standards. Looking for resources and wikization would call for a lot of effort (providing that notability could be established) and by plain common sense I don't think it is very likely to happen. Thus, I'm switching sides. Pundit|utter 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have any reliable sources, please describe them. I have searched. I see no reliable sources for a review of his book and the only newspaper coverage I found is the passing reference Slp1 refers to above in an opinion article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest SALTing. I concur with Slp1's summary of the situation above. I attempted to clean-up this article in the past but I am still greatly concerned that the article is a coat-rack to discuss Felton's views and in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR, in that it tries to divine Felton's views by what he has written about. There are no reliable sources about Felton himself so the article fails the WP:BIO guidelines. I see no future for this article other than an attack page. I understand getting emotional and angered by Felton's writings and wishing to counter them but Wikipedia is not the venue. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete:Tiamut's work on the article has improved it greatly and allayed my fears of an OR, coat-rack article. However, despite the additional references, I am still not convinced he meets WP:BIO. The sources are two journalism school magazines, Felton's website, and book blurbs (generally written by the publisher or author himself). I agree that the school articles do have significant coverage of Felton but are the magazines' coverages significant, i.e., are they read? Should closing admin decide it does not meet inclusion criteria, I would still suggest a salting to require admin approval to re-create. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article This article should be kept in. It is properly sourced and provides accurate information. The fact that some of what Felton says is controversial is no reason to delete it. This is not an attack ad as there is no editorializing or inappropriate language. Rather, it is a brief summary of Felton's views on subject which, although controversial, are worth noting. In conclusion, this article should be kept. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Nobody is saying that it is currently an attack page. The question is whether Felton (and his views) are notable enough for inclusion per WP:BIO. Can you produce some independent third party reliable sources that show that they are?Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Indeed, if his views are worth noting, then you would think there would be reliable sources noting them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Felton is notable and this aricle should be kept. (For the record, I strongly disagree with Felton's views.) He is an editorial writer for the Canadian Arab News which is one of the largest Arab-Canadian publications in Canada. His articles also appear regularly on Media Monitors Network. He has also been praised and condemned throughout the Internet for his views - i.e. there is considerable debate about his work. This is not an attack because his views are published not only in the Canadian Arab news and on Media Monitors Network but also on his own website. Felton's views are controversial but they are notable as so many people want to read them in order to condemn or praise him. This article should be kept.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • Felton's Views are widely distributed and published:Felton's articles aren't just published by the Arab News. They are also published by The National Vanguard, the Journal of the Canadian Communist Party, the Tehran Times, the Canadian Islamic Congress, and Radio Islam. While many of these sources are controversial (and again, I strongly disagree with many of the views of these organizations), it shows that Felton's work is widely distributed and notable. Very controversial - but notable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
          • I don't dispute he's published but is he notable according to WP guideline WP:BIO? I believe we need sources that discuss him. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've been asked twice, now, to cite sources to show exactly where people have published books, articles, and papers praising, condemning, or simply documenting, this person. You have not done so. That will not convince the closing administrator. Please cite sources, as you are being asked to do by multiple editors. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment below about the expansion of the article and the addition of at least four third-party sources (or look at this diff). Your request has, I believe, been met. Tiamut 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt an ex-columnist for a giveaway weekly newspaper isn't notable and this is underscored by the fact that there don't seem to be any third-party sources for this article. Being a whack-job conspiracy theorist doesn't make him notable either (ie his views don't make him notable, just undesirable). He's written a book that's been underwhelming in sales (not even making Amazon.com's top 500,000) and his publisher, Dandelion, is a vanity press[17] Let him fester in obscurity. The fact that this article has been deleted twice because of BLP violations and keeps being revived by his detractors is a concern. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to Abstain - Tiamut has improved the article by adding third party sources. He's still a minor figure and I'm not convinced he's notable enough to merit an article and, frankly, reading about him makes my skin crawl so I'm not sure I can be objective here. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Delete this is too much of a gong show and the dangers of this either becoming a self-promotional article or a attack piece are too great right now. Let's wait a few months and see if the number and quality of third party sources on Felton have improved. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE AND SALT Keep the subjects own writings on wikipedia reflect what is written in his books. He is not Wolf Blitzer, but he is well known inside the community of people who follow middle eastern affairs, mainly involving Israel and Palestine. Which is mostly due to his controversial writings which are interpreted by many within the Jewish community as racism in disguise. I actually concur with the majority of wiki editors here. Most of the reference comes from a blog, most of this information was posted by the subject himself. The only reliable reference to this subject is from other blogs and special interest journals. Despite the subject having his own web site, I feel the author appears to be attempting to use this wikipedia page as a personal advertisement. Amongst wikipedia members he has little importance as it is same crowd here that was here several months ago, no other input except for a new user and the apparent subject himself (who appears only to have an account to edit his own page) I strongly agree to delete and salt this page permanently until the subject gains real notability which can be verified by reputable sources. best regards.--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents:Greetings wikipedia editors and assorted interested people:

    Since I am the subject of this site, I'd like to add a few comments, as invited to do by Slp1. As many of you know this is the second page that has been created about me, each time by eternalsleeper. He created the page to repeat the libel spread by Ezra Levant, whom DoubleBlue and possibly others has recognized as an unreliable source.

    Though many of you may not like what I have to say, much less agree with it, nobody has been able to fault my research or my arguments. I invite CJCurrie, for example, to query me on any specific point, since he has expressed disapproval of my writing.

    I appreciate that my page may be a stub and therefore suitable for deletion, but in this instance, I ask that my page not be deleted for two reasons:

    1) If it is, some other nefarious individual will start it up again for the sole purpose of repeating Levant's libel and attempting to smear me. At least now the page is protected against vandalism.

    2) My views, contoverisal though they may be, are, as hyperionsteel writes, widely distributed. I am one of the few Canadian journalists not in the pay of the pro-Israel mainstream press, and as such I believe I fill an important information niche. I know people are reading my page because my website aggregator records increasing referrals from Wikipedia.

    I do understand that my page needs fleshing out so I would like, with your permission, to write a short précis of myself as it pertains to my writing (sourced, of course) for inclusion. I will not post it myself but give it to hyperionsteel. If that is acceptable, please let me know.

    I will also upload a photo.

    Anyway, that's my contribution to this matter. Sorry it's been so time-consuming, but so long as vandals are kept away, I don't see whay it should not stay up.

    Happy Wiki New Year! Voxveritatis (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Accusations: I have not edited his page for over two months nor have I even looked at it, when will this lawlessness on his page be dealt with in the proper fashion?

      This user claims to be Greg Felton himself and is demanding that people go to him to get the truth and now he mentions he will update a photo for his site. Thank you Voxveritatis for your contributions to wikipedia, and the laughs.

      As for his page being deleted, I don't think it should be but it wouldn't both me one bit if it was. I don't understand how the other editor feels it's a, "POV" unless they mean that due to the subject editing his own article it is becoming a conflict of interest.

      I don't disagree with what's written on his page now, and I have no interest to waste my time with this subject of little importance.--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Dear Greg, its not about what you say, but about whether anybody notices. So far we've searched and have not found any reliable third party sources citing or referring to you. Sorry. Pundit|utter 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Pundit: I understand your position. I am only concerned that, once removed, the issue of defamation will return anew. If the page is to be deleted, can a permablock be placed on starting it up to regurgitate second-hand libels? Please bear in mind that the page was started for precisely that reason. I notice that Wikipedia editors spend a lot of time responding to vandalism, so I appreciate that my page is more trouble than it is worth. Voxveritatis (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Several editors have suggested to the closing admin that the article be WP:SALTed which would mean the deleted page would be protected against re-creation and requiring an administrator to remove the block in order to re-create the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: DoubleBlue: Salting sounds fine. I think this is the best solution. However, I disagree with your editing of my comments regarding eternalsleeper. It is a fact that he started the page, and it is a fact that he did so to exploit a second-hand defamatory comment about me. This is not a personal attack. He admits on the Greg Felton talk page that he started it, and his conduct before and since has borne out the truth of the second part of my statement. The misconduct of eternalsleeper throughout this episode is the one subject that has not been treated satisfactorally. Voxveritatis (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Felton (Voxveritatis) has since asked that his wikipedia bio page be kept. See his comment and keep vote farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have refactored some comments and removed some personal attacks as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep discussion on topic of whether page should be deleted or not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please note I have made a number of additions to the article, as represented in this diff. Most significantly, I've added at least four third-party references on Felton and his work, and more material found on his website (such as the section on Interviews which also provides links to mp3 recordings of the interviews with him). I don't see how he fails our notability guidelines at all, and the disruptive editing tactics of his opponents are not a vaible rationale for deletion. I encourage those who have already voted to review the changes that have been made and reflect upon and/or alter their votes accordingly. Tiamut 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You refer almost exclusively to his own articles or articles published on his own website like this one - this by no means is a third party source, is it? It is even impossible to check whether the articles not by him were indeed published anywhere else. Information about a meeting promoting a book is not, as you apparently thought, a valid reference - nobody disputes the existence of the book , and the meeting, if it proves anything, it confirms only that the book is out and the author wants to promote it. You confirmed Felton's entering the finals of Jack Webster award, but I'm not even sure if the award is important enough to count for the actual winner, and not just a nominee. And so on. Pundit|utter 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair. The article by Nancy Lees (1999), entitled, "The Culture of Cowardice" is from The Langara Journalism Review. If the copy we have is from Felton's site, that doesn't mean we cannot verify the original source of publication. Another article I cited is by Natasha Muslih (April 1999, Issue 3 Volume 1) and was published in Thunderbird Magazine. These two articles establish the controversy over Felton's being forbidden to write on Israel-related issues, which Muslih writes even went to Canadian Press Council in a case that Felton lost when they ruled that publishers could determine what they do and do not want to see in print their privately-owned publications. This alone is in my opinion enough to establish notability. You also ignore the other third party references citing Felton's work such as the Arts in Education newsletter and David Icke's book. Tiamut 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, do not forget the interviews with mainstream media outlets in Canada such as those conducted by Michael Smyth on "Nightline B.C." (CKNW 98 AM - 14 August 2006 [18]) and by Jon McComb on "The World Today" (CKNW 98 AM - June 6 2006 [19]. These indicate notability, at least in Canada. That he is regularly published in the Tehran Times, Middle East Times, and elsewhere in international media indicate that thereis familiarity with his work outside of Canada as well. Tiamut 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict so not a totally logical response, perhaps)

Indeed, and with all due respect to Tiamut, who has done a tremendous amount of work on winkling out sources, I am still not convinced that he makes the grade of "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The independent sources we have now (as I say, mostly thanks to Tiamut):
  • A City of Vancouver website showing that he was promoting his book
  • Blurbs from Amazon
  • Two articles from college newspapers/magazines[20] from Thunderbird magazine and [21] from the Langara Journalism Review
  • Quoted in a book published by "Bridge of Love Publications" and written by conspiracy theorist extraordinaire David Icke, whose Wikipedia page I have never before had the pleasure of reading. I particularly like the part about him announcing he (David) was the son of God in an interview with Terry Wogan;-)
So, I can't honestly agree that any of these are reliable sources by WP standards, thus meet the standard for WP:BIO. And unfortunately, according to WP:BIO these are what we have to go on, since "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." In any case, apart from the books, the articles you have mentioned have been published mostly on the political forum Media Monitors Networks (Please note that MMN is not a news site per se and actually calls itself a political platform [22] inviting invites any and all to contribute [23]), some interviews related to his book launch, and some local newsletters, work for the Canadian Arab News, which I frankly can't find out much about at all, and the website is not that helpful [24], a mention on website called the Canadian Spectator [25], and some articles in Middle Eastern papers. While thanking you for your work on this, I still don't think he meets the criteria, I am sorry to say. Slp1 (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree more with Slp1. Tiamut did an excellent job collecting all the information available, but it is not enough. Just to clarify: I was not challenging the article by Nancy Lees, but rather the manner of referring to some source placed on the described person's personal website, as this is hardly satisfying reliability requirements. Other remarks - as expressed by Slp1. Pundit|utter 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure there are more and better sources to be found (I don't have access to Canadian newspaper archives for example, in which I am quite sure we would find a significant body of material on the controversy over Felton's writing at the Courier.
Additionally, while I appreciate both Pundit's and Slp2's comments, they both ignore the two radio interviews with mainstream Canadian radio outlets, one of which focused on Felton negatively, but nevertheless discussed his work, the other of which consulted him as an expert guest on internal Palestinian political developments. It is quite clear he enjoys some notability, particularly so in the Canadian media sphere. Does he have to universally and internationally famous for him to be included in Wikipedia? Tiamut 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is just that being on the radio is nothing particular, really. I was invited to radio panels and for radio interviews about 8-10 times - radio stations need to fill the air time, I would expect ANY author of a book to be able to get on the air a number of times just because of the publication. On the other hand, the lack of printed, reliable third-party resources is a very strong indicator the person IS NOT notable. Maybe there are articles on him somewhere in the depths of Canadian local and paid-access only journal databases, but so far we have not found them. If anybody brings them reliably on, the discussion can surely reopen (and even if the article is deleted, you can then make an argument to bring it back). Pundit|utter 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I guess it comes down to the closing admin's interpretation of whether WP:BIO's notability standards have been met, or might be met with more research. I should mention that I have removed the WP:OR selective quotations of Felton's work since my last comments here. I think Felton is notable primarily for the controversy his work generated at the Vancouver Courier, which was the subject of considerable coverage in other newspapers, according to the two third-party sources cited. While he is a prolific writer, authors of hudnreds of articles and two books, you are correct in noting that we have so far been unable to find significant third-party coverage of that body of material (besides the two radio interviews in 2006). I believe there is more to be found and that we have already established some notability, at least in the Canadian media sphere. But I can accept that others may interpret WP:BIO more stringently. I tend not to, given that much of the scholarship I am familiar with, doesn't get much mainstream coverage since it deeply critical of mainstream media and its tendencies, posing a kind of catch-22. Anyway, whatever happens, thanks for your honest and fair input. Tiamut 17:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To return the compliment, I too appreciate your calm, measured approach to this situation, your editing, and agree that there is the danger of systematic bias, though I suppose I feel less convinced of the application in the case of a Canadian and working in Canada. BTW I agreed with your deletion of the 'quote mining' section, though note they have been returned now by another editor, claiming you were trying to whitewash Felton's views, (sigh) and Felton himself has removed the second book you found, saying that it was "published illegally" (sigh). I am happy to leave this decision up to the closing admin, poor thing!!! --Slp1 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick note: above I didn't include the radio interviews as secondary sources, and instead included them as primary sources, thinking of WP:PSTS. On reflection, it seems an interesting point: if the radio programs had been discussions about him and his book (but without him) then they would certainly seem to me to be valid secondary sources that he was notable. Since they are interviews/panels they still seem more like primary sources to me, equivalent to his articles etc, where he gets to express his ideas etc. But I can see how others could come to a different conclusion.--Slp1 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Tiamut managed to stay calm in the discussion, and was able to bring probably all shards of information about Felton that are available. radio broadcasts may call for a more general discussion about rules, although common sense in current rules may be enough, too. I'd say that in some cases radio interviews definitely fall under primary sources, as Slp1 pointed out. Pundit|utter 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom and also per subject's request. --Tom 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Tom, since when did the subject of an article get an opinion on whether he has a wikipedia page or not? It seems that this subject would like to be immune from criticism and censor information if the subject is actually the user Voxveritatis. I agre that the subject is a mere popular blogger who has gotten some attention from the Canadian Islamic Congress and the JDL with nothing even close to substanstial as the amount of attention he is getting on here, but even though I have general consesnus now with most of the editors points, I do not believe that a subject of this article or any other article should have a say on whether his/her page stays up. That would certainly be a conflict of interest, no?  ::::--Eternalsleeper (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eternalsleeper, there have been a number of bios of significantly more noteable people who have had there bios taken down recently. I actually agree that that the subject of an article really shouldn't have a say in whether they have an article. It was more pointing out that the subject is ok with delelting and salting this article as he posted already. --Tom 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, I believe the subject is ambivalent (see the comments of Voxveritatis above and below)--Slp1 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no WP:SALT - if another meaningless article will be written, then i'm sure it will be quickly deleted. on the other hand, who knows - maybe someone in vancouver will notice him in the years to come. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is written like the subject is Wolf Blitzer. How much of it was written by the subject himself? Since when is this allowed - why wasn't this editor blocked? This article has become comical. I could find more to write about a 2nd year political science student, let alone someone who maintains their own web site and pretends to be an "investigative reporter!"
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quit yer whining you hypocrite! My page was not "comical" so long as it contained YOUR non-existent derogatory research, but now that good people like Hyperionsteel and Tiamut have done real research, you denigrate them and make (again!) unsubstatinated false claims about its provenance and veracity. I did not write it! Now that you've started the page, I hope it stays up. If not, I can live with that, too. Voxveritatis (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lol, Okay Voxveritatis. Keep name calling, I find it comical. 599,103rd on the Amazon best sellers list? Did you see how many links that are added? For fun I looked at other notable journalists and none seem to have as many as greg felton's page does. Why don't you thank me for creating your page? First you complained about it and accused me a Zionist conspiracy against Felton, when I am neither Jewish or a Zionist, now that I voted for deletion you are writing that I am attempting to mislead people and that it's a conspiracy (and that I am really interested!) It's very comical... both the page and the comments, and of course the accusations here if you read everything you have written. At first I thought Greg Felton was notable, but after so many other wikipedia articles disagreed I have come to consensus that Greg Felton is nothing but a popular blogger, an ex-columnist for a small newspaper in the west coast who just presently writes on occasion for the Canadian Arab News? If your page stays on remember that there is no censorship of information and that people can freely critize you if it's wikipedia worthy material. I just can't bear to have the thought of seeing someone break so many wikipedia rules and try to impose freedom sanctions on his page and get away with it. Your opinion on whether your page stays up or not is not in your hands, if Jim Wales is not allowed to edit his own page why should a former newspaper editor for the Vancouver Columnist be able to dictate wikipedia? --Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tiamut has proven notability many times over. Characterizations of Tiamut's comments by others misrepresent and minimize the sources Tiamut has found. Some of the editors calling for deletion are from the usual group of rightist pro-Israeli editors that regularly call for deletion of articles and info they dislike that shows the pro-Palestinian POV. For other incontrovertible examples of this Western systemic bias see my user page. I think people are mixing up whether they like or dislike Greg Felton with whether there should be a Wikipedia article about him or not. Personally, I don't know whether I like Greg Felton or not. I haven't decided yet. The deletion decision concerns whether this article meets notability requirements and nothing else. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riiight. And that is probably I deceitfully voted weak keep in the first place, only then to investigate any further. Oh, yes, and I'm surely Western. Pundit|utter 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There can be honest differences of opinion on notability. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created his page and I get accused of a Zionist conspiracy, I say delete and I get accused of being part of the Zionist conspiracy, do you see a trend here? --Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion decision concerns whether this article meets notability requirements and nothing else. The rest of the drama is just a distraction. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. Though I do think that the ongoing WP:BLP problems are an issue too.--Slp1 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a web-search suggests to me that this guy is notable. The 15,100 Google references are clearly not his own "self-publishings", they're other people commenting on his activities. PRtalk 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PalestineRemembered and thank you for your vote. Indeed, the high number of google references may suggest notability - can you, then, point to a couple of valid, third-party sources on Felton and not by him/promoting the book? take care Pundit|utter 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name brings up seven million. I looked on google and most of the stuff that pops up is from unreputable sources like Canadian Coalition, Youtube, Tehran Times, Canadian Islamic Congress, a lot of gossipy styled web sites. There is nothing really from a legitimate wikipedia worthy source at all. The subjects claim to fame is being a finalist for a provincial award, which he lost for a book titled "False Claims"...[26] Greg Felton is not news worthy, anyone can write a book. I had a friend who wrote a book and didn't even know it was for sale on Amazon.ca until I showed him, and he had no clue how he was going to get paid if anyone purchased it. He is a popular blogger like writer who has attracted the attention of those involved in Palestine related stories on the Internet and to an extent, a few Canadian Jewish organizations.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to diss the "Tehran Times" - it's the leading International Daily (allegedly) for a nation of 80 million people (ie bigger population than the UK, France or Italy). It's cloying patriotism is not particularily attractive but I'm not sure it's worse than many other RSes. It's front-page story on the US election (admittedly referenced to the BBC) is "better" than any equivalent story from a Western source about an Iranian election.
And Greg Felton's censorship by the RS "Vancouver Courier" (without, presumably, finding serious distortions) should elevate him to some small measure of notability, right there and then. If he'd been silenced because he was guilty of distortions I'm sure he'd have been notable - how much more so in this case when he's been censored for POV only?
Personally, I'm a little concerned about these third-tier biographies of subjects commenting on Israel, since they're so often an excuse for smears. If we can't keep this one clean, then we should delete it - but if we can, then it's well worth having. I know I could easily see a story from him in a blog somewhere and think "I wonder who this guy is, what does Wikipedia say?". Well, Wikipedia says he's a third-tier commentator who may have been censored out of the main-stream media by powerful interests. That's the kind of thing I come to a modern, web-based encyclopedia to discover. He's amply worth the paper he's not printed on. PRtalk 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject, Felton, appears to be sufficiently notable. Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly tried to prove that according to Wikipedia standards. Can you help us by revealing the sources you're relying on in saying he is notable? I believe you that there are reasons for what you write, I just haven't been able to find the proofs of notability myself. Pundit|utter 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The Lobby thinks I'm notable

Pundit: I'm not sure if this will help establish 3-party interest, but on Feb. 23 and 24, 2004 the Edmonton media reported on B'nai Brith's attemtps to censor me. The Edmonton Sun and Edmonton Journal carried the story and can be found on their websites, but for a price. I have copies on my computer. You can find commentary and a copy of the article at project threadbare by searching "greg felton" + "edmonton sun" To noboy's surprise The Edmonton police found the charge of promoting hatred to be unfounded. (April 7, 2004)

If you would like more info on this let me know. Eternalsleeper's frothing has sunk to a new level. Voxveritatis (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this helps greatly in establishing notability. Along with the many things Tiamut has already found. What are the exact titles, authors, publications, and dates of the articles? I can enter the info in the wikipedia article. It is reference material or "further reading" info. Also, I can usually find publicly-archived copies of the articles somewhere on the web if I have the exact title. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter you can see what voxveritatis is referring to here [27]
B'nai Brith accused the Alberta Arab News of "hate mongering" for publishing Felton's article which they said he denied the Holocaust. B'nai Brith asked the AG to invetigate the Alberta Arab News and the AG told them it's not his job but the polices. Is that news worthy? This information comes from a blog, but the two paragraph article was copied and pasted when it was published four-years ago.
--Eternalsleeper (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You beat me to it. I had just finished reading the seven-paragraph article and was about to post the link here. Article: "Arab newspaper denies accusations". By Lori Coolican, Edmonton Sun. I still need the date of the article. By the way, I believe people should read the article rather than go by your summary of it.
I will let Tiamut or another editor put the newspaper article reference info into the wikipedia article. I assume the newspaper article came out on February 23 or 24, 2004 since Voxveritatis mentioned those dates for the Edmonton articles, and since the forum thread was written Feb. 24, 2004. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter For further coverage of the issue, you can go to the Feb. 23, 2004, edition of the Cleveland Jewish News. I can send you the link, if you'd like. Also, the story appeared in the Edmonton Journal on Feb. 20. and the same day on the World News Network wire service, where it appeared in the Egypt Daily.
Voxveritatis (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please paste the URLs here. Could you also give the exact titles for the Edmonton Journal and Cleveland Jewish News articles? And is the date of the Edmonton Sun article February 23?
I need the exact titles in order to do a phrase search (with quotes around the title) in Google. I have Google toolbar and can do both general web searches and searches of a single website. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Timeshifter The Cleveland Jewish News piece is a wire blurb form the Jewish Telegraph Agency "Group wants paper investigated."

Other articles and dates are:

Ryan Cormier, "B'nai Brith accuses Alberta Arab News writer of inciting intolerance," Edmonton Journal, Feb. 20, 2004. Lori Coolican, "Arab newspaper denies accusations" Edmonton Sun, Feb. 24, 2004. Doug Beazely, "B'nai Brith unapologetic" Edmonton Sun, April 9, 2004

Hope this is enough. Voxveritatis (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I (or others) can do some Google searches to find the articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is reason to delete a hard-to-maintain biographical article in cases where the subject's notability is marginal, and where the article has already been used as an attack page. I have looked over the recent additions to the references. There are lots of primary sources there, and interviews with Felton don't give evidence of his notability. Dandelion appears to be a vanity press, and Amazon says that book is not currently available. I don't know about Progressive Press. The new sources that are discussed in detail higher up in this AfD don't seem very impressive. When sources are *easily* found, then maintaining a quality article in the face of attacks would be a simpler matter. It seems people are having to search very hard here, and the standard of the sources they are finding is low (like the Edmonton Sun article from February 2004 that was only 200 words, expressing that B'Nai Brith was critical of Felton). When sources are small and fragmentary (even in a reputable publication like the Sun) they don't provide much usable material to incorporate in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having followed this article closely since October or so, I concur entirely with this analysis --Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Catch 22 here is if the subject holds views that challenge those of the mainstream press, it stands to reason tnat "official" notability would be harder to find than that of someone who is a mainstream favourite. The criteria for inclusion should not be so narrowly defined, and my notability has been established. Amazon sales of The Host and the Parasite have been stopped at my request because of fiduciary misconduct by Dandelion Books. Progressive Press published an earlier version in breach of contract and should be ignored.

When is a decision on all this going to be made? Voxveritatis (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If all of Felton's views are mentioned in this article, (i.e. his views on 9/11, the Holocaust, Irwin Cotler, and his opposition to Israel's existence), this article should be kept. However, if this article is limited to material that does not tell the whole story, then it should be deleted. Felton does have controversial views on important subjects, and all of them, not just the ones Tiamut wants to be displayed, should be included. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hyperionsteel: I do tell the whole story, including the zionist of view. The value of my writing, if I may say, lies in its inclusiveness and comprehensiveness. this is why The Lobby and the likes of eternalsleeper go after me. Voxveritatis (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Hyperionsteel, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. We don't need or want 'all of his views' here. The problem (as has been pointed out several times) is that you have been deciding (in this and other articles) which of a person's views are notable, which is Original research and has often appeared to be Quote mining.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement. Felton's views on Israel are one of the major points of this article. In fact, the largest section deals with the controversy over his views on Israel. What's wrong with, in addition to this, quoting articles that he has written in which he makes further statements on Israel. I didn't decide that this topic was important, but rather Tiamut did when he/she created the section which covered the controversy over Felton's views on Israel. How can quoting from his articles in which he discusses Israel not be important? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Are you ever going to stop accusing me of going after you? I posted an article from Canada.com, I didn't even know who Ezra Levant was. All i did was create your article, it's not only my responsibility to add other information. If it's not true I wouldn't want it on wikipedia. But it's my opinion you should not be editing your own article nor demanding people come to you before making an edit. Good luck to you and please stop being so cynical and paranoid. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably provable arguments do not constitute paranoia, and your feint at innocence is ludicrous. By the way I have never demanded that people come to me before making an edit. The minute you stop lying about me I will ignore you. Voxveritatis (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear fellow Wikipedians, let's all try to be civil, no matter what the other side says. Pundit|utter 14:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will there be a decision?[edit]

I'd like to know when a decision on this will be made. I've been fighting with Tiamut about what material to include in this article for a while now and I'm tired of it. If this article is going to be deleted anyway, I'd like to know no so I can concentrate on articles that won't be deleted. The proposal for deletion has been on for some time now and the arguing back and forth on this page will never reach a consensus. It's time for a decision (I think we all have better things to do than fight over this forever). (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

AFD discussions are kept open for a week. Today is the first day that this could possibly have been closed, although given the length and complexity of the discussion I doubt that it'll happen that quickly. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 8 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 Withdrawn -Djsasso (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Hedman[edit]

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

Non-notable junior ice hockey player therefore does not meet WP:N. Despite the prod removers belief that he plays for the professional Modo club. He actually plays for the amateur junior club. Can be readded when/if he ever plays professionally. He isn't even elligable to be drafted for another 2 years. Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am the prod-remover. I can't verify if he plays or not, but [T]he fact he is listed on the clubs page for their players here : [28] made me convinced this nomination must be a misunderstanding. The drafting talked about here is the North-American rules. I am sure we should have profesionall hockey-players from other continents, too. Greswik (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (actually, clicking further showed he has even scored a goal for them: [29])Greswik (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He does appear to be listed so I am withdrawing my afd as I have found sources indicating both that he does and does not play for the professional team. So to err on the side of caution I am withdrawing it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Stormie (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Saville[edit]

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

This persom plays for the youth team not the full chelsea team. And there are no non trivial WP:RS. i hope he makes it to the premiership - we will write his page then. As an option, we could redirect to the chelsea youth page as an option but I thought we should reach consensus. Obina (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "the highest transfer fee for a 14 year-old" might make him notable, but it must be sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a) non-notable child footballer, b) I don't think hardly any of the information in the article would stand up to scrutiny. You can't buy and sell 14 year-old players, so the concept of the highest transfer fee for such a player is meaningless. - fchd (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as violating WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:41, 8 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 both and redirect Invasion of Naboo to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Battle of Geonosis to Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. --Oxymoron83 07:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Naboo[edit]

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

Also nominating Battle of Geonosis. I think we've been through this deal before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination), aka entirely in-universe, just plot summary. Fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homestar runner!!! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my frequent summaries in AFD ;) Pharmboy (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summaries? What summaries? Oh well, let's stay on topic. As I said, delete it. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 19:18, 2 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. Kurykh 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Horizon[edit]

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

Not notable album by Brazilian band. Actually, could fall under A1 or A3.   jj137 ♠ 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the band and their other albums. They should all live or die with this afd.

Sadom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tertius (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love and Death (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a strong recommendation to merge the contents. As an ordinary-editor action, I have redirected the pages to List of minor Star Wars characters. Anyone with interest and knowledge may pull content from the respective pagehistories in order to merge any useful content. Rossami (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finis Valorum[edit]

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

The following minor characters also included in this AfD:

All are minor characters which could be merged into a list of characters (several already exist). No sources which confirm notability are to be found, and the entirety of the pages are in-universe. Fails WP:FICT. 'Nuff said. David Fuchs (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


I made some edits to the Shmi Skwalker article and I hope it's works according to Wikipedia guidelines. -Gillian Reed (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (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. Addhoc (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Edwards[edit]

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

Not notable musician.   jj137 ♠ 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, especially since I already nominated this for speedy deletion. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm afraid I do not see an assertion of notability in the article. I did not locate any verifiable sources suggesting meeting WP:BIO or WP:Music. The article drops a lot of names, but the connections are tenuous at best. Dlohcierekim 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No ghits for "A Smile in the Mind" and Edwards that demonstrated any notability. No sources cited by article. No way to meet the standard of WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources and notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. Pundit|utter 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP - no notability, no reliable sources, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 2 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. Kurykh 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligentsia (band)[edit]

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

Contested CSD with tenuous notability claims. Procedural nomination; I have no opinion either way. Keilanatalk(recall) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Christian Zacher[edit]

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

Unknown actor. Claim to notability is future movies and a few appearances on Jimmy Kimmel Live. CastAStone//(talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vojvodina national football team[edit]

Vojvodina national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This football (soccer) team is not internationally recognized, according to the article, and makes no other assertion of notability. While I do not believe that this meets WP:N or WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information; I am bringing this to AfD instead of prod as I believe others will contest me on this point. CastAStone//(talk) 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's more that it fails WP:V. Following the link in the article led me nowhere useful. A google search gave a lot of info about FK Vojvodina, but nothing about this article's subject. Darkspots (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like it's bad linking. I suspect the link is http://roonba.50webs.com/vojvodina.htm . The site uses frames so copying from the Address bar would simply give you the home page. JASpencer (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationale in nomination, and I would also suggest a similar examination of the other articles linked from List of non-national representative teams in men's football. Many of them are also of the same form (non-national team that played a very small number of games). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too thin. Punkmorten (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Delete or Merge. I have nothing against these teams per se. I support a rubbish team and I like small nations, so temperamentally I want to keep the articles. Perhaps we could incorporate them into an article on the league/tournament/informal arrangement that these small nations seem to play in. I have another issue in that I'm not sure that on its own that http://roonba.50webs.com/ meets the reliable sources guidelines and would really like to see a second source such as a team website or other references. JASpencer (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a query to the Reliable Sources noticeboard: [[30]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to query - I would say "No, it isn't reliable". I see no information on the site in question to indicate that it is anything but personal fan page. As such, it is not reliable. Don't know enough about football or Vojvodina to opine on the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This article seems to be a hoax, with no reliable sources having any information about this. // laughing man 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Draws many comparisons with the Normandy national team article - also up for deletion. Not enough detail to warrant interest or sources to verify.  Carlyle 3Carlyle3Contributions/Carlyle 3 


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after a complete real-world-perspective rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha[edit]

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

Relevance at WP:FICT and WP:WAF- mostly plot summary, in-unvierse, with a trivia section which hardly argues for its notability. David Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I actually knew what they were, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is all original research without citations. Outside of the Star Wars universe, there isn't any notability that I can think of. Not like 'Jedi', which has reached into other areas, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral That was a pretty good rewrite and now focuses on the actual animal used and is properly cited with less in-universe content. This may or may not be notability as written, but probably will pass. Pharmboy (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found one piece of real world info here. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but that doesn't add to the notability so much as simply referencing the bantha as being "old technology" compared to cgi stuff today. It is about the technology that made the bantha, not even the bantha itself. Pharmboy (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find the original bantha here apparently it was an elephant called Mardji who died in 1995. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient notability outside of Star Wars universe. The Chronicle piece is a trivial mention of Banthas. The popular culture references are original research-y. Darkspots (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP My appologies, but i'm not sure what others are seeing. The article is 90% out-of universe and highly referenced. Maybe i'm missing something but I see this as a strong keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more appologies, after checking the history i believe the article i commented on was far different then the one nominated. But the article that now exists i stand by as a keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good rewrite has taken place adding out of universe information which is referenced. The article might actually needs a bit more plot added to the article now! Davewild (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable fictional creature with plenty of sources. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in its current form is concise, informative and interesting.--starfarmer*comm 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is notable. Axl (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is notable. Or is it poodoo (I can never spell this Lucas junk)? Lawrence Cohen 23:02, 3 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. Rossami (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C&H Distributors[edit]

C&H Distributors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of why this business in notable. There are no secondary sources. Awotter (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable business. -- Redfarmer (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable, can't see a speedy delete since they are claiming notability, but having govt contracts and 300 employees doesn't make you special or notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I believe it is notable; it got placed in at number 35 in the top 100 industrial distributors in North America, to say the least. --Nzgabriel (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. Minimal sources, all but one unreliable. 35 is not ranked very high. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 8 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 merge into Star Wars melee weapons – clear consensus against deletion and for a merge. KrakatoaKatie 22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vibroweapon[edit]

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

Cruft, pure and simple, disregards WP:FICT. I could cite the numerous fictional weapons pages that have been deleted, but that's a waste of time- in short, non-notable element of the Star Wars franchise, fails to distinguish between fact and fiction (entirely in-universe). David Fuchs (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC) David Fuchs (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though tentative. I won't let myself by biased by the fact that I'm the creator of the article; instead, I think it could be made worthy through the use of sources. Vibroweapons are prominent in the Expanded Universe books, and are also featured widely in the KotOR series as one of the few weapons able to resist lightsabers (which is notable in-universe). So, in short, I guess all it needs is more sourcing. Changing to Merge due to lack of sourcing. Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable.Merge with List of Star Wars melee weapons. I'd like to think I'm a fan of the Star Wars films and I had to read the article to see what this even was. -- Redfarmer (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, there is a lot more to the Star Wars universe than just the movies... see Star Wars Expanded Universe. Not to list too much, but there have been games, comic books, etc. Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even as such, I'm sticking by my vote. The weapon seems non-notable. If there was an article such as "weapons in Star Wars" you could maybe give a summary for it, but it doesn't seem notable in and of itself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge. This is a fairly well-written and informative article, and no less worthy of being kept than the Lightsaber article. Unless somebody does create a 'weapons in Star Wars' article as Redfarmer suggested, I say keep. Alloranleon (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd disagree about it being as notable as lightsaber. Lightsaber has actually come into common cultural usage since the original film was released. I wonder how many casual Star Wars would know what this was without looking it up? -- Redfarmer (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note there is a Star Wars weapons article; here. Also, Redfarmer; how would you define a casual Star Wars fan? Someone who's just seen the movies? Because you could easily read some of the books and be a casual fan... Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, you could read the books and still be a casual fan. That point does not make the weapon notable, however. As you yourself pointed out, there is an existing article which summarizes various weapons used in the Star Wars universe. With the possible exception of the lightsaber, I think that's where summaries of Star Wars weapons should go. -- Redfarmer (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, the lightsaber is more widely-known, but anyone who's played any recent Star Wars video games will know what it is. Still, since there is a relevant article on Star Wars weapons, it should probably be merged after all. Alloranleon (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment here: the point is not to argue obscurity. I might never have heard of James Madison if I'm a poorly schooled kid outside the U.S. (or inside for that matter). The issue is the lack of sources, the in-universe nature, and the game-guidish writing. I didn't nom' it 'cause I've never heard of it (I have). David Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I did a Google for it, searched the Star Wars databank, and I'm not getting much in the way of internet sources... I'll get started on making the article into a merge-able form so that it can be integrated into Star Wars melee weapons. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I say, it would be best to merge the article with the list of Star Wars weapons, although there is a fair bit of information in the Vibroweapon article, and it might not fit too well. So, either keep it as it is, or merge, but don't delete. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Alloranleon (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll wait for the AFD to run its course; if the result is delete, then I'll clean up all the Whatlinkshere stuff and merge them. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; this definitely crosses the line into cruft. JJL (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Star Wars melee weapons; per Alloranleon. --Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Vibroblade - this isn't unique to Star Wars, but Vibroweapon is more detailed than Vibroblade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamoche (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Clearly impossible to establish any sort of notability or verify any of the content via reliable, secondary sources. Much of the article looks to be original research. Pure cruftery. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Wars melee weapons; that article is clearly where this belongs. Freederick (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete but definitely do not merge to a Star Wars-specific page. The concept of a "vibroweapon" predates Star Wars by several decades. It is a very common theme in an entire genre of science fiction. Vibroblade might be a slightly better target but that page is not in very good shape and I'm skeptical about its potential for improvement. A cross-wiki redirect to wikt:vibroblade might be more sustainable. Rossami (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This article should be merged with Star Wars melee weapons--Pmedema (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless notability can be established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:34, 8 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 Speedy Deleted. Non-notable band. IrishGuy talk 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mightning bolt[edit]

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

Has been speedied multiple times and keeps coming back. Completely non-notable. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone should probably also block the creator and these glaringly obvious sockpuppets of his as well. I'll probably go through and tag them all later if I need to, but at the moment I'm a little bit too lazy to bother.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -97.81.32.245 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a rationale? This is not a vote. You need some kind of reason for why it should be kept. Or would you rather just continue to vandalize wikipedia and remove warnings?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, I am just trying to add some info to wiki, not vandalize it -97.81.32.245 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly violating policy so you can get a couple extra hits for your crap band no one knows about doesn't "add" anything to Wikipedia. I'm sure you can find something better to do with your time, no?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there, let's be civil. I'll be happy to discuss this if you cut out the childish language and insults. -97.81.32.245 (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -86.160.92.141 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)— 86.160.92.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep -24.151.80.135 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)— 24.151.80.135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Since this is getting into the realm of WP:THREATS, which the band obvious is not aware of, I'd like to request speedy and close. Yngvarr 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy / Salt / Spank Seems to be a no brainer. We get a couple of these each week, don't we? Not notable, recreating deleted article, no assertion of notability, no CDs, author keeps adding. It doesn't matter how many KEEP DUDE! votes there are, as Wikipedia is not a democracy and the article clearly fails BAND and 17 other tests. Pharmboy (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt - Still meets WP:CSD#A7, as the claims for notability are either no real claims or plain ridiculous (such as this "nomination" for this "award"). ~ twsX · TC · Typo-Warning! ~ 20:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Don't stuff beans up your nose... Pharmboy (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above note is clearly trying to stereotype Mightning Bolt fans as destructive vandals and is non-neutral, and thus should be ignored.
No stereotyping needed, because either the band or the fans are doing a fine jobs theirselves. The history shows the edits which have been made, resorting to calling people furfag and threatening to sue. Yngvarr 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Young[edit]

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

not a notable broadcaster. Unusually for someone who seems to have had a 30 year career I can find no news articles that even mention her. This article has no sources other than her website. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not notable, even after thirty years. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I can find a news article [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46351 here] that mentions her, but still not very much. Jon513 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article cited is actually about Joseph Farah (founder of WorldNetDaily) and makes a passing reference that a segment from his show will be picked up once a week on Zelda Young's show ie "As WorldNetDaily reported, a recorded excerpt of the program can now be heard weekly in Toronto every Monday within the Zelda Young show on FM 100.7. The excerpt is branded: "A Slice of Farah."" - No information about the Zelda Show itself, let alone Young as a person and, in any case, I don't think World Net Daily is considered much of a source. Indeed, I don't see how this source, even if it was notable, could be used in the Zelda Young article let alone justify its existence. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. There is a three-page article on her in Lifestyles Magazine (Fall 2003) which is archived on her website: http://www.zeldayoung.com/zeldaarticle.pdf Would be nice to have multiple sources, however. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I did find a source that shows she has twice won the Canadian Ethnic Media Association award for radio (in 2004 ad 2006) but not sure how notable the award is. And considering the lack of other coverage about her, it looks like she lacks sufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as snowball ... Victuallers (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Biography (A&E taskforce) has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She seems like she could be notable with the right sources, but it doesn't sound like those sources are easy to come by, either. Delete without prejudice against recreation if somebody comes along later on with improved sources. Bearcat (talk) 06:43, 8 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, clear failure of WP:MUSIC. --Stormie (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KillLoveJoy[edit]

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

This band is nothing other than a cover band. They have no notable releases and no mainstream recognition as far as I can tell Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was article speedy deleted under A7. Non admin closure. PirateMink 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DL Software[edit]

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

Various reasons for this AFD; Firstly, the article doesn't mention anything about why the company is notable. Secondly, it appears to have been created by an employee of the company who has made no other edits.

I have tried looking for sources for this company but most of the things I have found didn't have anything to do with this at all, therefore I can't establish if this company is notable for anything. On the other hand, I can't read Finnish so there may well be something I am missing. PirateMink 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is no AFD tag on the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what happened, but apparently this was speedied under A7 PirateMink 10:21, 4 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. Kurykh 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's Angels 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charlie's Angels 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD; film not yet in production and not likely to be for quite some time doesn't meet WP:NFF, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL Accounting4Taste:talk 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources, only a few hits on Google, but all are speculation from E! and the like (no conformation, only speculation) and fan fiction Doc Strange (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but allow recreation without prejudice should the film be made. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Redfarmer. in two or three years, we'd be able to find better sources. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is it with all these crystal ball articles that end up on AfD? There seem to have been loads recently.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no such film, hence my belief that we need no such article (right now). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has one sentence, about a non-existent film. This should have been CSD'd. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:05, 5 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. Kurykh 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Los Alamitos Curve[edit]

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

This is a neologism; I can't find any non-Wikipedia sources for it. NE2 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO. --Son (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom  — master sonT - C 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Against my better judgment, I spent ten minutes or so sifting through various CalTrans and other government related documents, and did a Google search for various terms - absolutely nothing came up with this name. Hoax? Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:29, 3 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland[edit]

List of Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

a meaningless list that has been here for four years with no sourcing, no context, and nothing to indicate why there should be an unlinked list here. Corvus cornixtalk 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And expand, obviously. There must have been others at times, no reason to restrict this to incumbents. Also, could be combined in a "list of judges of northern ireland" Avruchtalk 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Helenalex (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand; this really should be a historical list, of which the three listed now are current incumbents. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:44, 3 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 all. The reasons for retention seem to be "important to the game", a complaint about the nomination, and an essay the community has not endorsed. These are unconvicing reasons. Those arguments for deletion are that the information is unreferenced, in-universe, and fails to assert notability. These have not been addressed, and are convincing reasons. I am unwilling to reccommend merging unreferenced, in-universe information - this would simply be pushing the problem to another article - so can only close this as "delete". Neıl ☎ 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turanic Raiders[edit]

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

in-universes article about a race from the homeworld series of games. Ridernyc (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- An important faction in the Homeworld games, players fight againist them and the page lists the factions units and general info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crab182 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep / Merge The information is important, but maybe not important enough to justify an article. I support merging the information into the Homeworld article or maybe make another article of minor races in Homeworld. It should be noted that I started this article and I'm a big Homeworld fan so I am probably biased. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT, no reliable secondary sources discussing the topic, no real-world significance. SharkD (talk) 21:21, 27 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, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now also includes the following:

Turanic Raiders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Beast (Homeworld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bentusi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kushan (Homeworld) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taiidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kadeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vaygr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiith
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiith Somtaaw
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progenitor (Homeworld)

Since all of the above articles concern fictional races in Homeworld, it is only fair that any consensus should apply to all of them. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:V and WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Wikipedia is not a guide to playing video games. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a "Races of the Homeworld Universe" article, and cut down the cruft. There is no resaon not to have basic coverage of topics in the Homeworld universe--the fact that these existing articles are overly crufty doesn't mean that there should be absolutely no coverage at all. —Dark•Shikari[T] 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and trim per Dark Shikari. Otherwise Keep by default --Ryan Delaney talk 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree with Dark Shikari we should merge all the info into a "Races of the Homeworld Universe" article. Also I don't think this info helps a person play the game, it just provides information about the game. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I note that no attempt was made to maintain the quality of our coverage of the subject, nor to establish any kind of discussion about the same. There are also no signs of the nominator doing any research or making an effort to see if something else than the extreme option would be preferable. There are also no signs of consideration of what this information could be used for or what these articles might potentially become before attempting to have it declared categorically unsuitable. --Kizor 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the nominator has not given this content due consideration is a baseless assumption on your part. However, in your consideration of the factors you mentioned, why do you think these articles should be kept? To what extent should Wikipedia cover the fiction of the Homeworld game series, and is it notable as fiction? Is it possible to cover these fictional elements without depending wholly on primary sources and personal analysis? Finally, why would the decision to delete be considered an extreme option? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Permission to answer this later on the 7th? --Kizor 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course. Thanks, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for showing courtesy to a fellow editor. (I wouldn't consider this unusual, but I just got through having people argue with me for asking them to not to call content they dislike "garbage". Anyway.) Wikipedia should cover the fiction in as much detail as it takes to give an adequate description of that fiction. The extent is a matter of debate, but that's still on a whole another scale than blowing all this up. The fiction of the Homeworld games is a significant part of the things, due to both peculiar plot-heavy game design and a ridiculous amount of accompanying background material. Ignoring this aspect of the games or reducing it to trivial treatment will harm our coverage of the works as a whole. As for deletion being extreme, I had assumed that to be undisputed. It's the single option that destroys the content and edit history as part of our coverage, makes no attempt of finding a more suitable form, and makes people jump through hoops to even receive an opportunity to fix the content. --Kizor 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but from personal experience closing admins are pretty good at spotting these things themselves. Something can be non-obligatory and still be a good idea. --Kizor 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In-universe plot repetition long on original research and short on the reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability. Merging unsourced details of questionable notability doesn't solve the problem it just leaves a single deletion candidate for further down the line. Someone another (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I agree with Kizor on his assessment of the nomination, but my own research on the topic shows that it is very unlikely that any of these articles can possibly meet the Wikipedia standards. Deleting these articles would improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, as it would mean a shift from maintaining a lot of stub-size articles to writing actual good articles. User:Krator (t c) 19:55, 6 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. Kurykh 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rezurrection[edit]

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

Non notable batch of albums. The artist is a redlink, and none of the album pages assert notability in any way. Absolutely minimal Google hits, no reliable sources to be seen. I am also nominating The Legend Within and Rize of the Spirits‎. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • RE above Then it would be helpful for them to lodge a vote here. And sign with ~~~~. ;) That said, just because the guy says he's a big fan of Rezurrection, doesn't necessarily exonerate the article from its lack of notability... Alloranleon (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't agree more, I just wouldn't like someone's opinion to go unnoticed. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 3 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-handed chess[edit]

Three-handed chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is just an advertisement for non-notable three player chess games. This was only edited once (besides my AFD) and that was back in August. Tavix (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I noticed on another chess variation's article, Four-handed chess, you personally had expanded the article from a stub. Why do you feel four-handed chess is notable but three-handed is not? (Note: This could just be a matter of me being ignorant about chess.) -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded four-handed chess because that is one single chess variant that has a lot of people actually playing it. I got a four-handed chess board for Christmas so I included a picture I took as well.Three handed chess on the other hand is an article that is basically just an advertisement for different "variations" that few, if any people play. Besides, it is possible to play chess with three players on a four-handed board. Tavix (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your basis, though, for saying that it is not notable? It almost sounds like you're saying four handed is notable and three handed is not because you got a four handed board for Christmas. The article references a book which apparently includes information on three handed chess and also links to an article in Time magazine about it. Additionally, a Yahoo search found six pages of references to the game when I put "three handed chess" in quotation marks. I admit that the page sounds advertisement-ish but I'm really still feeling that if four-handed chess could be expanded from a stub, three handed could as well. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry if I made it sound like that is only notable because I got a four-handed board for Christmas. I said that because that was one of my reasons for expanding the four-handed chess. And is six pages really enough to be notable? That means any site that has "three-handed chess" somewhere in the page is listed. That would include the Wikipedia article as well so that would mean more or less of 58 hits. Is that enough for notability? I put three-handed up because it was basically an advertisement, and most of the links point to one site. Tavix (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I have great interest in chess, I have essentially no interest in chess variants and I typically don't edit those articles. When I saw this article up for AFD, I checked The Oxford Companion to Chess to see if it has an entry for three-handed chess. The Oxford Companion is currently the standard English-language reference work on chess. An entry is not required for encyclopedic notability (we have many articles that don't have entries here—we require more chess biographies alone than any 483 page book could hold and it was published in 1992 so we have another decade and a half of chess developments to cover as well), but it provides a baseline because in my view most entries in this standard reference are worthy of a wikipedia article. The Oxford Companion entry on three-handed chess traces its origin to 1722 and discusses developments made in 1837. It also mentions that it is of less importance historically than four-handed chess and that it has never been as popular, echoing comments made by others above. Still, in my view, important enough for a substantial entry in the Oxford Companion means important enough to keep. Quale (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmm, interesting find. Do you have any internet links for that? I would like to see that for myself but I do not own a copy of that myself. Also, another question: What kind of three-handed chess is in that book? I ask this because according to the wikipedia article, there are more than one.Tavix (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good questions. Unfortunately The Oxford Companion to Chess is out of print, but not out of copyright. I highly recommend it to chess enthusiasts, but used copies are more expensive than one would expect ($40+ is common). As Voorlandt mentions below, the Companion discusses several chess variants for three players rather than one specific variant. Those mentioned include the initial 1722 variant using a board extended by 24 squares (8×3) on three sides (similar to what is used for four-handed chess, I think), an 1837 version using a symmetrical 120-square board, and a later version by Antoine Demonchy (c. 1827–1895) using three regular chess boards. I should add some info from the Companion myself rather than waiting for someone else to do it, although I don't really know very much about chess variants. Quale (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can confirm that the Oxford Companion has an article on three handed chess, about ¼ page. Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments and Quale's above. I'm not convinced this fails notability. Honestly, I haven't heard of the vast majority of chess variants but I'll change my vote if someone can give me a good argument for why this is not notable. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article is not about a specific chess variant but rather about all chess variants to be played with three people. Chapter 37 of Pritchard's classified encyclopedia of chess variants (ed. John Beasley 2007) is entirely dedicated to three-handed chess and this makes the topic notable. The article should probably be rewritten to make it sound more encyclopedic; but I strongly oppose deleting it. Voorlandt (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I should have mentioned in my keep argument that I agree that the article should be improved. Currently it relies too heavily on chessvariants.org and this isn't really satisfactory. It should include more information from printed references such as Pritchard and Hooper & Whyld. Quale (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep References provided by Quale and Voorlandt sound good enough to keep the article. Another possibility would be to merge the article into Chess variant, but it would probably overload it as Three-handed chess is not about a particular variant, but about a whole family of chess variants. SyG (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP AND EDIT IT!! I strongly oppose deleting this article. I think that it needs to be rewritten to discuss each type of three man chess in greater detail, with segments outlining the special rules and the different boards used to play three man chess, and all the special rules and different stragities that this game implies. It is a legitamate game that a lot of people DO play, and others would love to try if they could get ahold of a three man board. I have one and I love the game personally. My problem is I can't find a set of "offical" rules for the proper movements around my hexagonal board. It's not played as often because it isn't as advertised as much as two man and four man chess. It is an interesting game and should be detailed on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.75.119 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, but it does need quite a bit of work. Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 5 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 Speedy delete per A2..   jj137 ♠ 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David antunez[edit]

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

This is an apparently self-promotional biographical article in Spanish, sourced almost entirely to blogs and YouTube rather than to reliable sources. The article was listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation, but was removed from the list there without being translated as it was up for proposed deletion. The article creator removed the three PROD tags without improving the article. It should be noted that an article with the same content has been deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia twice; if the Spanish Wikipedia editors don't want this article, I can't imagine why we would want it either. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: This text has been deleted twice from the Spanish Wikipedia under es: David Antúnez, and creation of an article under this name has been blocked [31]. Furthermore, the article had a prod tag before that was removed by the main author without any explanation[32].  Andreas  (T) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This one is incredibly obvious. Tavix (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all above... Isn't there also some rule regarding writing an artile in a different language in the wrong area....here being english?--Pmedema (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's not even in english. It has also been deleted twice from the Spanish Wikipedia. Delete it. Ohmpandya (Talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A1.   jj137 ♠ 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot (t.A.T.u. song)[edit]

Robot (t.A.T.u. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

article about song which lacks individual notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Gribbs[edit]

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

Non-notable character on the show. Only appeared in first two episodes of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (killed off in the pilot episode). Unlikely to be used at all on the show in the future since, well, she's dead. Redfarmer (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability and doesn't look like it will pass it anytime soon. CM (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely sources exist or will ever exist to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:07, 4 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motive (album)[edit]

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

This album might be by a musical group that passes WP:N, but notability is not inherited. The article is missing the usual database entries such as All Music Guide (which does not confer notability anyway, but is a bad sign), says nothing about the album charting, and has no sources. Strandwolf (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. References have been added and the clear consensus was to keep. (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Street (Manhattan)[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a un-noteworthy street in New York. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as potentionally sourceable and notable. IMHO, inherently notable city streets have a subway, El, or bus lines that runs down it; and historical buildings facing or having addresses on that street. Madison Street (as opposed to Division Street, Manhattan) has both. I think there are two bus lines (M15, M22) (see [33] at the MTA web site]) and there are several historic schools on Madison Street. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article's got a chance. Needs cleanup and expansion.Mitch32contribs 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is about five days old. Give it time. Although I'm actually pessimistic that it has potential beyond being a WP:COATRACK, but the nominator hasn't indicated he actually knows the subject is unnoteworthy. Noroton (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doubtful this article is headed for WP:COATRACK use, could you expand on that? Benjiboi 12:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I'd forgotten the part of WP:COATRACK definition dealing with bias which doesn't apply to this article. Despite the fine improvements by Bearian, however, the other aspects of WP:COATRACK do seem to apply: It's hard to believe there will every be reliable sources found for information on this street that focus on the street itself. Therefore the article is probably destined to be either entirely or mostly about individual things that are on the street. Bearian has added some information that describes the street itself and the nature of what's along stretches of it. I still doubt that this kind of information will be bare-bones forever and any further expansion of this short, short article will come with expanded information about the coats on the rack. I'm not changing my vote from keep because, particularly with geography-related articles, prospects tend to be pretty good for being pleasantly surprised. Noroton (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD isn't clean-up. If the article is less than a week old perhaps more worthy clean-up tags looking for expansion and sourcing would make sense. Benjiboi 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a sourced article of a notable street. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a new article we should make some allowances. Although neither of the sources presented satisfy me with regards to notability for Madison Street. In general it should be possible to find significant coverage for any streets with historic buildings, books on architectural history could be a good place to start looking. Taemyr (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added more sources; there are plenty I found at Msn.com. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep as the road has notability. --Son (talk) 01:44, 3 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. Bongwarrior (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parental Consent Act[edit]

Parental Consent Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. This article is about a bill that has yet to be passed, and that is unlikely to be passed. There are no secondary sources listed, and no significant discussion of the bill in the mainstream media. Allow recreation of article without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bill was introduced in 2004. Article is an attempt to build support for a Presidential candidate. Strandwolf (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A short, neutral, descriptive and useful article about a historical thing. 4,560 google hits for the term. `'Míkka>t 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- no-brainer; this is proposed legislation that has obtained no press coverage, or coverage in any reliable source. Any conceivable argument for notability is WP:CRYSTAL. Delete w/o prejudice, and if something actually comes of it, re-add later. Note that by Paul advocates own admission, the WP would have something like 50 more RP articles if we covered every random bill he introduced. WP does this for no other politician. --- tqbf 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This article was created in 2005 on then-current debate, which may be harder to find now. And WP:OTHERSTUFF: nobody is advocating creating separate articles covering every random bill Paul has introduced. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. Also, many of the Google hits for "Parental Consent Act" refer to unrelated state legislation rather than to this bill in Congress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is non-notable should be deleted. Bill was also introduced in 2004. Ohmpandya (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Excuse me, the reason this article exists and has so many editors over the years is notable historical public debate over ADHD and other health issues in 2005, especially among the homeschool segment. As you can see at easily Googled articles in the journals Behavioral Health Management and Psychiatric News, there is reliable source coverage, which someone should incorporate into the article. The bill was also supported in an article by a Georgia state senator. Likelihood of passage (a prediction) is not a criterion for deletion; and the article is by its history emphatically not a candidate endorsement attempt, nor do my updating edits introduce any endorsement skew. There might be an argument for merging content from the article and these new sources into New Freedom Commission on Mental Health or TeenScreen, but I think such a merge would turn an article into a WP:COATRACK. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add another magazine: Weill Cornell Medicine, p. 12-13 article.
    You're seriously putting forward a single sentence in a student newspaper as a significant independent coverage in a reliable source? --- tqbf 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm citing an alumni magazine as additional coverage to the previously named reliable sources. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable legislation. Maybe once it passes the subcommittees... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it at the least reaches the floor. A proposed act, even one not passed, that attracts major comments from the national press is probably notable, but not every introduced piece of legislation. If the sources are as sparse as this, it isnt notable. DGG (talk) 07:11, 1 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 speedy. The quoted books do not say nothing near. Most probably a joke attack page on a person with surname "Siminitus". `'Míkka>t 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afflux siminitis[edit]

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

I suspect a hoax. Subject has zero hits in Google and is not found in WebMD.com. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, due to the finding of many sources. Wizardman 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowlin Middle School[edit]

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

This is an article about a Middle school that does not indicate the importance of said school. CastAStone//(talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bare bones directory listing. Somebody has removed the AfD template, though. Strandwolf (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete AfD Removed by the author User:Dj crunk I'm afraid. I have reinstated.Paste (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteYou don't think the middle school would be important for the people that go there? Besides that, there really isn't any reason for this article, and thus I say delete.Tavix (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment User Dj crunk removed the Afd again. I've restored it and put a warning on his talk page.--Pmedema (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Kansas City, Missouri School District to where I have merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A) News articles are only useful for notability if the school is the subject of the article, not just referenced. Honor roll articles shouldn't count. B) What I said is absolutely true - the article makes no assertion of notability.--CastAStone//(talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not misrepresent the news coverage, that is not helpful in the debate and hurts your credibility. There are dozens of articles with significant coverage there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please re-view the article. I have added 38 significant sources. That meets WP:N. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From WP:N (schools), an admitted work in progress: "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist." Obvious expansion needed; this is not a reason in itself to delete article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It then goes on to say that in that case it should be redirected...--CastAStone//(talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as schools tend to have a degree of notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kansas City, Missouri School District per TerriersFan. JERRY talk contribs 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page needs to be rewritten and expanded, obviously, but that is an editorial matter. User:DoubleBlue has found an amazing range of independent, verifiable, non-trivial sources that meet even the most stringent interpretation of WP:N. the page should now be kept to allow time for expansion. TerriersFan (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Kansas City, Missouri School District because the school hasn't yet been transferred to the Independence Public School District. From what I saw of the articles I read, there isn't enough information shown to be available that indicates substantial coverage of the school from any independent sources, therefore a "Keep" doesn't seem to be appropriate. I did some searching myself through Newsbank.com and found the same thing -- the articles mention Nowlin as one of seven schools in this controversial vote that will move the schools from the KC school district to Independence. This should be a redirect/merge until it can be demonstrated that sources exist giving enough coverage (even many multiple sources with a little coverage might be good enough, but we don't really have proof that we have more than an insubstantial mention of the school in the articles included in the long bibliography on the page. Even the headlines of the articles in the bibliography raise doubts about how much information they would have. Much of the information we have now will likely be outdated after the transfer to the new school district takes place. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article as currently written provides reliable and verifiable sources that would establish notability, but that need to be better integrated into the article. A merge/redirect to the school district would be an appropriate option if more time is needed to allow the article to be better established as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article establishes notability. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 6 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep, merger not ruled out. Sandstein (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We the People Act[edit]

We the People Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a bill that has yet to be passed, and that is unlikely to be passed. There are no secondary sources listed, no significant discussion of the bill in the mainstream media, and the analysis of the effects of the law are original research. Allow recreation of article without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete --- gag. I agree that it is extremely annoying that we have to police new pages created for proposed legislation by Ron Paul that will never pass, but this one has (infinitesimally weak) sourcing, and by that I mean WorldNetDaily (gag ack thbht) and "New American". We should focus on the articles that have no claim to notability, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Consent Act, first. --- tqbf 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't that new, it has been around early since early 2006. Since this bill is unlikely to pass, it is likely to be quickly forgotten when Ron Paul leaves office. That would suggest that unless the bill passes, or generates some significant discussion beyond pundits expounding how great the world would be if it did, the policy of notability is not temporary would apply. Burzmali (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree the PCA should probably go. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we shouldn't keep this article just because other crap exists. If the sourcing is really as weak as you say then yes it should go. Incidentally, it seems PCA coverage may have been slightly better then this. It was evidentally mentioned at Behavioral Health Management and Psychiatric News (See the deletion discussion)Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This bill is unlikely to pass, and if it does, then there will actually be sources to use. Tavix (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bill is important both in its backing by conservative souces http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673 and its usage by liberals to create opposition to Congressman Ron Paul. In that Ron Paul's campaign is notable, his key bills are notable 163.246.197.46 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an exercise: (1) a page on a political PAC's website isn't a reliable source, (2) notability isn't inherited, so Paul's bills aren't inherently notable, (3) you only cited one source, not multiple conservative sources, (4) you didn't source anything about liberals using this bill to "create opposition to Paul, and (5) you should create a WP account before commenting on an AfD (you'll gain privacy by doing so). --- tqbf 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    KeepLiberals using this bill to create opposition to Paul: http://insert.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/24/1184755-the-we-the-evangelical-people-act . Admittedly, it is my own post, but I made it before this act's article was added to AfD, so I think its legit. (Sorry if this doesn't format right. Feel free to fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert name here (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perpetually re-introduced bill would not be notable if it were not authored by a controversial presidential candidate. As such it is valuable for what it says about his political positions. The bill analysis does not seem like OR as much as a restatement in non-legalese. Primary sources are perfectly fine for textual stuff like legislation. FarmBoi (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited, and we already have a page for the Political positions of Ron Paul. The analysis is original research specifically because it tries to "translate" legalese, an amateur's opinion of what a law would do is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Burzmali (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your link doesn't work. In fact, "inherit" does not occur anywhere in WP:N. You mean WP:ITSA which states:
        Notability of a parent entity or topic ... does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That's not to say that this is always the case (two of the notability guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
        MilesAgain (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Restatement in non-legalese" of legal documents is practically the definition of WP:OR. --- tqbf 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we are supposed to be able to summarize -- except for legal documents, because unlike all other summarization, that would be "practically the definition of WP:OR"? Please explain where you are seeing that. MilesAgain (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If translation of legislation into "plain English" (or "non-legalese") wasn't synthesis, research, and interpretation (the definition of WP:OR), we wouldn't need lawyers. How does "plain English" interpretation of the law make it into the WP? When external reliable sources write about it. --- tqbf 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I'll agree with you on the 2nd paragraph of "Legal analysis" but the first is simply a straightforward restatement of the bill which is summarized from the plain language of its text, the same way that we would need to summarize a secondary source to avoid a copyright violation. The article is easily salvageable.
  • Keep - Notability is reasonably inherited in this case. Ron Paul came out of nowhere for most people, and it is abundantly reasonable to assume that people will be looking up his perennial attempts at legislation when deciding whether to vote for him or not. Given the article's edit history showing plenty of interest from IPs as well as diverse users, there is no question. MilesAgain (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While I agree with MilesAgain that notability is inherited in this case, I submit that, if this legislation's only notability is that of its author, it should be merged to Political positions of Ron Paul, as that would better link the bill to its author. If the legislation passes at some point, now or through the efforts of future legislators, then a mention of this first version would be appropriate at that time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a notable bill -- tens of thousands of are introduced every year, and this has few co-sponsors. Possibly merge with the political positions article. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The bill in question is notable because it was authored by a notable candidate in a current election and illustrates his controversial and extreme views. The fact the bill has no chance of passing, nor any chance of not being struck down if it did pass, doesn't change this. -SciurusCarolinensis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's being discussed more in the news, such as two days ago on CNN. TheSun (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That ought to be added to the article then! MilesAgain (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One wonders why the article on Brian Williams isn't 192909230230 million words long by now. --- tqbf 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One who can't see the difference between adding a secondary source to an article that has none and to one that already has them might wonder something like that. MilesAgain (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm leaning towards delete but don't know enough about the American political system. But if it's true a large number of bills are introduced every year most of which fail and if it's also true this bill has not received that much attention then I say delete. If the only attention this bill has received has been in relation to Ron Paul then whatever necessary content should be marged with an appropriate article. There is no need, in fact it comes suspiciously close to a BLP violation to include mention of an otherwise non-noteable bill just because the candidate who supposed it is very notable and has achieved some notriety because of it Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The short response is that Ron Paul has never gotten a bill made into law in his 10 terms as a congressman. He is well aware that any bill he submits will die in committee. He does it to grab a few headlines and to pander to his libertarian supporters. This bill has probably been submitted a half dozen times in different forms, each time failing without even a vote. Once Paul leaves congress, his proposal will be quickly forgotten. Burzmali (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This legislation has been introduced many times by this presidential candidate, and can easily be verified with various bill-tracking websites. It's important to know what the candidates really stand for, and bills that they have introduced is the best way to see that. ≈Superbeatles™ 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an argument for verifiability, but not notability. An article needs to be both. --- tqbf 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that legislation that a presidential candidate has introduced that would have far reaching effects is quite notable. It's a small peek into what a Paul Administration would be like, and at this point he still has a (infinitesimally small, mind you) chance of becoming President, and for this reason his legislative ambitions are notable. ≈Superbeatles™ 06:40, 6 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Women's Wrestling League[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Naked Women's Wrestling League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Deleted page lacked sources and the reason given for the prod was Notability not Established. Procedural nomination from undeleting admin and no opinion offered Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also the DRV there appear to be COI issues that unrelated editors could probably help with. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. They've had a couple of pay per views, and the Carmen Electra involvement also helps. I've seen some reviews of their "shows" on the internet (complete with thankfully censored pictures...these are not the prettiest human beings) which may or may not count as sources, but I am not willingly looking for them again. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In serious need of improvement but Keep. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:08, 5 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. Kurykh 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of al Qaeda terrorist suspects still at large[edit]

List of al Qaeda terrorist suspects still at large (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Unencyclopedic. The article documents some names who are suspected with al-qaeda connection. No need of this, if necessary there al-qaeda connection can be mentioned on the respective articles on the respective people. As such numerous articles can be created like List of suspected LeT members, List of suspected drug dealers, list of suspected Hizbul Mujahideen members, List of suspected Hamas members etc. etc. And also this info can be mentioned in Al-Qaeda article, no need to create a separate article on suspected members only. Hence I am nominating this unencyclopedic article for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover this aricle could become really article if the title was List of al-Qaeda members, this is surely not. This info can easily go in Al-Qaeda page. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wow, not sure if a list of members would fly, and the phrase Don't Stuff Beans Up Your Nose comes to mind. It isn't like they carry membership cards. wp:attack becomes a serious issue if you "accuse" someone of being a member. Pharmboy (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with you. They don't carry membership card. It is the law enforcement agencies who label someone as a member of a "terrorist" organisation based on some "concreate evidence". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for so many reasons, but Original Research comes to mind, as does Point of View issues (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, blah blah blah) *plus*... how do you source this? Get list from US govt. only? UK? UN? What if they don't match? The article doesn't even address what makes it notable (do we 'assume' why it is notable?) or define 'at large', 'wanted' or any other issues. It is just a list of people they made up or found somewhere with no context to give it meaning, ie: non-encyclopedic list. Pharmboy (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who cares if they don't match? I don't know of any government out there saying "These and only these people we have mentioned are at-large Al Qaeda members".Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. -- Redfarmer (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as it's unsourced and less useful than what we already have in the AQ article. It might be keepable as a properly linked subarticle if each name were sourced and annotated for their alleged involvement, e.g. "suspect in USS Cole bombing". The current title is wrong, though. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not a internal counter-intelligence department that it will make list after list on suspects. This is an encyclopedia, such info cannot become an encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but Wikipedia has articles on the important subjects that also happen to be counter-intelligence topics. A list of people who want to commit mass terrorism and belong to an organization that can do it is, in fact, notable. And encyclopedic. And sourceable. Reliably. Not rocket science. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This info can easily go into AQ article. Name of 10 suspected members do not deserve for a separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I voted "redirect/merge", but it would surprise no one who's paying any attention at all if there aren't 100 names that could be reliably sourced. If the list included a little information on each one, it could not fit in the AQ article, and "redirect/merge" allows for quick re-establishment of this article if some editor wants to put some time into this important subject.Noroton (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also as per WP:HARM there may be other people with the same or similar names and this could affect them personally. This article should be removed quickly.--Pmedema (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per arguments above.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Al Qaeda Despite some of the comments here, the subject is obviously encyclopedic: It is a serious topic that can easily be sourced to indictments, statements by government sources and to comments made by the subjects themselves and reported in the news media. Not only is Al Qaeda important, but the people who are in Al Qaeda and at large are especially important to readers seriously interested in learning more about terrorism. The comments above strike me as less about whether the topic is suitable than about whether the concept of terrorism is something we should think about at all. Sorry, scary subjects can also be encyclopedia articles. Sometimes they're especially suitable for an encyclopedia. I'm not voting to keep for the sole reason that the article is so short, unsourced and could easily be folded into the Al Qaeda article.Noroton (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per BLP, WP:NOT a guide to law enforcement, and a whole boatload of probably NPOV issues from an article and title of this nature. Lawrence Cohen 23:04, 3 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. Kurykh 06:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of heads of states and governments[edit]

Spouses of heads of states and governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This article (if it can be said an "encyclopedic article") document the names of spouses of heads of different countries in a format of a list. No need of it; name of spouses are always mentioned on the articles on individual person. In this manner numerous trivial "articles" can be created like Children of heads of states, Pets of heads of states, Cars of heads of states etc. etc. No need of this article especially when the name of spouses are mentioned in respective articles. Hence I am nominating this unencyclopedic arrticle for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing women to pets and cars? —Sesel (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to the article title. It is not "Wives of heads of states and governments", it is "Spouses of heads of states and governments". Buy an Oxford English Dictionary from a bookstore and see what is the meaning of "Spouse".Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also I am not comparing persons to pets and cars, I am comparing the articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete notability is NOT inherited.(wp:notability) If they are notable on their own, then their own article would be the proper place to put them. Why not List of spouses of really famous people? Just as useless. Pharmboy (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Redfarmer (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't think why this could ever really be a useful list.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the redlinks scream WP:BEANS (why on earth would anyone need/want an article on the wife of Babrak Karmal?!) and while it is a substantially delimited list, the members on it are for the most part loosely connected. We have an encyclopedic article First Lady of the United States and one could reasonably be created for those countries where the HOS/HOG spouse has a public role, but I don't see the value of a global list of everyone who's been married to a President or whatnot when only some are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might want an article on Babrak Karmal's wife because she was an ambassador, government minister, member of the Politburo, and the "highest-ranking woman in the Parcham faction"! [38] —Sesel (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then obviously I picked a poor example at random (well, right off the top of the list). Such does not apply to the majority of the red links. If being a spouse is the only claim to notability for an individual, it is a very thin one, since notability is not transferable. We should not make red links for persons who are not likely to meet notability criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spouses of government leaders are a topic of some encyclopedic interest (the very concept of the First Lady is the proof), but any country for which we have sufficient sources to actually write articles on them will already have its own individual list (e.g. Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada, First Ladies of the United States, etc.) anyway — which pretty much eliminates the need for a comprehensive omnibus list of everybody who's ever been married to a president or prime minister. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very narrow-minded and nationalistic: a list of the US or Canadian first ladies is ok, but not on all the other countries. Also in other countries the spouses of presidents play an important diplomatic role even if their names are not that well-known. And I find it much more useful to have a comprehensive and chronological list than having to search for each single name in the various biographies of the presidents' bios (which are not always complete). Cause then I would not need this encyclopaedic tool at all and I would go right to a library.(User talk:krischnig) 12:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.64.93 (talk) [reply]

This is very narrow-minded and nationalistic: a list of the US or Canadian first ladies is ok, but not on all the other countries. Try again. That's not what anybody in this debate has said. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 5 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 redirected to Last of the Summer Wine. Non-admin closure of editorial action. Serpent's Choice (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compo Simmonite[edit]

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

Article is a restatement of most of the information for the character already on the main page for Last of the Summer Wine. Due to the nature of the show, the article could scarcely be expanded further due to constraints in character development. No other characters on the show have their own page but are linked either to main page or Recurring characters in Last of the Summer Wine. Redfarmer (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is an article about the character (who was killed off...) and should be covered in the article about the show. Pharmboy (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It only links from two articles: Bill Owen (actor), the actor who portrayed him, and Compo, a disambiguation page which could easily just have a link to Last of the Summer Wine instead of to this article. I don't see that the page is used enough to warrent a redirect. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap. If it's a plausible search term about something that verifiably exists or existed, then it should be included.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 06:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horadrim[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and appears to be simply an in-universe plot repetition of the plot of different Diablo games. As such, its just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You have stated this is from the Doom series, yet is clearly from the Diablo series. Please slow down at flagging articles for deletion en masse, as you've continually projected very little knowledge about the hundreds of articles you've hastily tried to erase from this site with minimal effort. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable outside the game/fantasy world. Pharmboy (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close You're gaming the system by daily flagging articles based on games, TV and/or movies for not having "real world notability" per anonymous ISP up there Doc Strange (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry about that, your right it is Diablo, I read Diablo when I wrote that, as I write them most of the time each time and not mass produce tags, and Doom must have been in my head when I wrote it. The concerns remain though, that there is a lack of notabiilty and referencing in this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close- the fantasy world makes it notable enough, this policy is wrong, and per above this user is clearly gaming the system.--Blueanode (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to get into the politics here, but claiming "the policy is wrong" doesn't really belong here and arguements should be based on the policies. If you want to change the policy, go to that talk page for that policy. As to 'gaming the system', I have no idea and you haven't provided enough information to make your claim, nor has the above. Submitting a lot of articles by itself doesn't indicate abuse without futher evidence. You might as well call him a communist or whatever, if you don't provide more info. Many people believe (including myself) believe that 'in universe' articles don't belong in Wikipedia unless there is ample sources to demonstrate notability outside of that universe. The 'fantasy world', in spite of your claims, does NOT make it notable enough on its own. At least that is what the policies here seem to indicate. Pharmboy (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Judgesurreal777.27s_deletion_game it appears I am not the only one who thinks your claims of "gaming the system" is bogus. The admins at Wikipedia tend to agree. Muddying the AFD with nonfactual stuff isn't appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, repeats plot details from two games and adds nothing else, no coverage demonstrated in reliable secondary sources or out-of-universe details. Someone another (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More suited to a guide about the Diablo universe than an encyclopedia. Not enough encyclopedic information to justify an entire article to itself. Una LagunaTalk 11:00, 1 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It doesn't appear that this is of encyclopedic importance: no assertion is made that this crime is more notable than the thousands of worldwide rapes and murders not included. Trans to wikinews or delete. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was a notable murder due to the vast amount of news coverage it received, due to the (suspected) unusual circumstances and unusual participants in the murder (a wealthy well educated American and Italian) and the connections to internet culture. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page is fully sourced and encyclopaedic. The murder is notable by virtue of the extensive and worldwide media attention. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Whilst WP:NOT#NEWS should apply, the arguments of the two editors above me I also kind of agree with. Connections to internet culture though? What do you mean?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this AfD could ever be successful. The media coverage has been prolonged over a period of time, and it's notable worldwide but especially in the UK and in Italy.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be a case of a variant of missing white woman syndrome (murdered white woman syndrome), though, because she was obviously quite a pretty young woman, and indeed these cases seem to attract more media attention than do the murders of non-white people, older women, and men. There was a 19-year-old girl murdered in the city I live in recently, although from the pictures in the newspaper she wasn't a very attractive girl in my opinion. I don't know how Wikipedia should deal with such issues, really. Current consensus is that if something's had a lot of news coverage over an extended period of time, then it should be notable enough for an article. One article I'm surprised has never been AfDed yet is Murder of Rhys Jones, about a schoolboy who was shot with a gun. I also agree that this case is notable for its unusual circumstances.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connections to internet culture were that they all seemed to use websites such as myspace, facebook, and youtube and one of them was actually caught when he logged into his account. Regarding missing white woman syndrome Meredith Kercher was of mixed parentage, I think her mother is Indian or something so I'm not sure that really applies. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked the Rhys Jones article, and it seems to me that that article asserts notability, tying it to current events and showing the effects on other people. This one just gives the facts and allegations.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want another "Murder of..." article which I think is less notable than this? Murder of Arlene Fraser, which seems to be notable only in Scotland.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, talk page discussions of notability are probably inherently biased. They can be a means to determine the level of interest, but the participants are self-selected to have an interest.--Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and coverage has extended over time. We don't have a guideline on crime articles outside of WP:NOT#NEWS and it is hairy to untangle the notable ones because even minor crimes can receive "it bleeds, it leads" headline coverage in unrelated places, especially if they involve apparently sympathetic victims, extensive mystery, or (in this case, it would seem) an attractive and unconventional suspect. In this case we have the quite rare circumstance of international coverage in at least three or four countries due to the diverse participants. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Wikipedia is NOT news and shouldn't be. This article would do great as WikiNews. Tavix (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wouldn't. This article is written in an encyclopedic tone, whereas developments about the news story would be written as seperate events as the news unfolded and the case continued.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, at this time Wikinews uses a license incompatible with the GFDL, so Transwiki is not possible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be useful if you could explain your rationale for keeping the article - thanks.-h i s s p a c e

r e s e a r c h 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As above. Or do I have to invent a new one? Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:NOREASON. You should give some reason for voting keep, because this isn't just a vote, it is an attempt to form consensus. A reason allows the closing admin to properly judge the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I originally created this article to satisy concerns about the nonnotability of Amanda Knox. From there, I have been involved in maintaing references in this article and preventing violations of BLP, so I am well acquianted with most of the problems this article has.
This case does have a historical context and can be made very relevant to topics in crime, media coverage and the international reaction to the murder, however I take personal responsiblity for failing to establish that context so far. I volunteer to write those sections and also to satisfy the dispute about recentism, but I am very busy at the moment and will be unable to do so before this AfD expires.
Also, I have said previously that if the suspects are released without charge or if this case goes cold, it will likely lose most of the notability and interest it has generated to this point. If that happens it should be renominated for an AfD and I will then vote for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue that the article is of encyclopedic importance as long as there is outdated and innacurate information about the case elsewhere on the internet. For example, a search for 'Meredith Kercher' on Google (01 Jan 2008) returns a Times article dated 7 Nov 2007 as the first result, in which much of the information has been rendered irrelevant by subsequent events. What is Wikipedia for, if not to present an up-to-date and balanced reference resource for a subject as a counterpoint to transient or sensational news and media coverage? 62.94.26.13 (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the reasons this article is likely to remain of encyclopaedic importance is that the use of the cyberpresences of the victim and main suspects has, from the outset, been a key factor in the way the case has been reported in the media. This has meant that the case has been reported in a way that would have been unthinkable fifteen (or even ten years) ago. Yet it is likely that cyberpresences (in the form of blogs, or videos, and so on) will become increasingly important as the 21st century develops. For this reason alone, I would anticipate that this will be regarded as a landmark case, regardless of the outcome of the police investigation. It is one of the features which already distinguishes the case from the many thousands of murders which have been committed around the world in recent months.--Quywompka (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW no consensus. My own opinion is that it should be transwikied as "news" - notability is unlikely to extend beyond the terminus of investigation/sentencing/appeals (yes, I know, crystal-gazing - so is saying otherwise). But I can't imagine consensus emerging on this until six months after that. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is notable enough, as far as I see that most editors here have agreements to keep it. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is very low level, with quite generical and wrong information. An article should be made out of proofs, documents, not newspapers or rumors (which is same think for what they shown as far). In this way it's just useless article, a case of wikipedia unsuccess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.90.39 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This user is a spammer whose site was blacklisted per WP:SPAM they have vandalized this article extensively to protest the block of their website. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008.
  • Comment: What website, cumulus clouds?
  • Keep per WP:NOTABILITY, consistent with the conclusions reached here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. That's the Wikipedia line, but as I've said before - "I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it." -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak keep, since I fully agree with the above chap, in every respect. It is depressing that crap like this continues to be painstakingly and fully researched and organised while we barely have articles on some huge fundemental concepts and articles about prominent Pakistani and other officials who are creating history right now are barely written in English. Jdcooper (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak keep I agree absolutely with what was said in previous two comments. 71.217.84.229 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Take a look at the article Sarah MacDiarmid, which is about a woman who disappeared in Melbourne in 1990, and is thought to have been murdered. This appears to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and is not as well referenced as this article. Also, I feel that even if the Kercher case does go cold (as suggested somewhere above), history will recall the murder as one of the more infamous of our time. 86.147.219.233 (talk) 23:08, 4 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. I'd be happy to provide the source text for a transwiki, if anyone's interested. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Bionicle[edit]

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

Plot summary full of original research brassed on primary sources. None of this notable and there is no real world context in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not notable outside itself. Pharmboy (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not notable and fails WP:FICTION Tavix (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Transwiki to the Bionicle Wiki. I also want to point out that it is not a plot summary--EmeraldWithin (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Simply a list of fictional locations and how they relate to the plot with no real world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content to Bionicle--CastAStone//(talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content is referenced and well layed out. Interesting information and list will reduce editors from trying to make individual articles for each place.--Pmedema (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Smells like WP:OR. Only references primary sources, consider border-line {{advert}}. Best if userfied and then moved to a Bionicle related wiki.-- Emana (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability through reliable sources.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells like cruft; all original research, and no real-world content to satisfy WP:FICT. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:49, 9 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. Fram (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Riley[edit]

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

I'm concerned about Notability issues in regard to this Actor. The article cites no reliable sources, which is not itself a reason for deletion, however I cannot find multiple independent non-trivial sources which would indicate notability. CastAStone//(talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Canvassing notwithstanding, arguments that the article violates WP:NOT#PLOT are decisive. Complete lack of WP:V sources about the subject is also a factor. Pigman☿ 01:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Mata/Toa Nuva[edit]

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

Don't feel like getting in edit war over tagging so here we go. Article is nothing but a giant plot summary of non-notable characters, full of original research based on primary sources. The only bit of real world context should be covered in the main Bionicle article. Ridernyc (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Bionicle, as that is the LEGO series these characters are from--CastAStone//(talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It tells lots of good information about the Toa Mata and Toa Nuva. It is very absurd to try to delete it.Swirlex (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh I didn't know it was up for deletion which seems quite stupid. We should definetly keep it because you can not find that info any where else on Wikipedia.70.217.249.4 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) P.S I'm going to notify my Wikipedia Bionicle loving friends to see what they think.[reply]
you might want to read WP:CANVASS, if you bring people here with no edit history they will most likely be ignored as meatpuppets. Ridernyc (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hello I was notified by my friend user 70.217.249.4. and I think that you should never delete this article. One main reason is that I am also a member of Bioniclepedia which has an article like this one and it is very important and I have read over the article we are discussing about and have seen that it contains very rich and valuable info. So overall I think it should be kept.Lhikanmaster (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go out on a limb and accuse Lhikanmaster of being a sockpuppet of User:70.217.249.4. Lhikanmaster has 2 edits, one to make his userpage a bluelink, and the other to this AfD. His account was created two minutes after 70.217.249.4 announced he was going to "tell his friends". 70.217.249.4's first two edits were a mere three minutes after User:Swirlex posted his comment here; While I am not definitively accusing Swirlex of sock-puppetry, It certainly does look suspicious. 89% of Swirlex's edits have been to user, talk, Wikipedia and other non-encyclopedic pages, and nearly all of the user's other edits have been in bionicle-related pages.--CastAStone//(talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the bionicle wikia and there were no edits made to talk pages there during this time frame. Swirlex left me a message on my talk page and I warned him that sockpuppetry almost always cause more harm then good. It would be nice if Lhikanmaster could provide with the name he uses on the bionicle wikia. Ridernyc (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and articles like it are excellent for the Bionicle Wikia, but they lack out-of-universe perspective and will probably always lack it. I suggest that it might be appropriate to merge the article in its present form to Bionicle, and this can be done by discussing the merge on the talk page to achieve consensus. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I object to the deletion of this article and am willing to edit to any extent needed to save this page from deletion.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a well-organized article with multiple references. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is a very good article. Where else are we gonna get this info? I have never seen another site with the Toa Nuva/Toa Mata on it. Ever. They are out of date, and as such, no one wants to have an article about them. It is our job to keep it on here so people can get educated about the past bionicle. (By the way, I think we should add the phantoka while we're at this.)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge for consensus per Tony's suggestion above. It seems unlikely that the article can aspire to anything more than a wallow in in-universe details and as such fails our notability standards. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main article per nom to allow (very limited) editorial merging or transwikiing. Real-world notability is very doubtful, and the article strongly violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka t•c 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Unless notability can be established through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:52, 8 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. Also, generally, only the nominator can withdraw an AfD; others will say "keep." Kurykh 05:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Homes[edit]

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

I deleted this {{db-spam}} a few minutes ago, but have had second thoughts and am bringing it here for discussion. While I don't think it looks particularly notable, it's certainly not blatant advertising. However, it does seem unsalvageable, being more about other features of the town the company's based in than about the company itself, and the town already has its own article so there's not really anything to merge. — iridescent 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote to withdraw AFD for a week (or prod) It seems that the area has some potential for an article. I wouldn't be surprised if the article gets renamed after it develops (ie, the monument rather than the donor), but I would think that maybe what the article needs is time to develop, contact author, and see if it can be salvaged. IMHO, it sounds like there may be something interesting in there, although poorly written at this stage. I agree that the purpose doesn't seem to be spam. It is just hard to tell what the purpose is at this point. Pharmboy (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Run-of-the-mill house builder with no sign of notability and no secondary sources. Fails WP:CORP. Deor (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, references do not support the notability of the subject, and nothing found on a search of Google News Archive (other than some lawsuits) either. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company, no good sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:58, 1 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 keep, per improvements. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedo system[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Torpedo system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note: AfD page changed to Torpedo system Natural hat trick (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles defining neologisms are not appropriate, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At best it should be moved to the dictionary. Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The assertion that this term is a neologism needs to be documented to provide support for the deletion proposal. --Tkynerd (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Burden of proof is on the article creator to proove that it is not one. What needs to be referenced is an article about the term. Not articles using the term. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tkynerd, please read WP:PROVEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there do not seem to be sufficient sources to write about this term. Even two-line pass is a redirect and that was used for years and years. Additionally, the term is occasionally used in other sports where there is passing. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the term is referenced in two references and three external links. All reliable sources. Clearly not a neologism. Natural hat trick (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again you missed the part where it says the articles have to be about the topic. Not just articles that use the topic. Here is the quote I placed on the talk page of the article. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a very narrow interpretation of WP:V, and I remind you that WP:NEO is only a guideline. We should use common sense here. Five newspaper articles referring to the torpedo pass clearly show that this is a verifiable term. Here are some more references, all that I view as reliable:
      • Move it to "Torpedo System" if you want, but this is clearly verifiable. Natural hat trick (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if it is widely used it is still relatively new due to the ability to make these passes only just started in the highest league in the world. As mentioned above, even the more well used term two-line pass is only a redirect. This would be better suited on Wiktionary as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not to mention that only 5 newspapers is a very small number. Searching google for this term has been very fruitless. -Djsasso (talk)
        • If the article were rewritten to be about the "torpedo system" (e.g. "Sweden's "Torpedo" style hockey (two centers, two halfbacks and one defenseman) has been the talk of the international hockey world. It's a very aggressive attacking style, perfect for a team with a tradition of strong skaters and responsible defensive play."[39] I would vote to retain, but that may as well be written in a new article space torpedo system. The existing article does not even really differentiate from the two-line pass except to indicate that the penalty was dropped, and without such explanation it's not very helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All good suggestions. I've started to rewrite the article and tried to move it to Torpedo system. Would appreciate help as I probably made mistakes moving things around. Natural hat trick (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I must say the article is now a much better article which you can source a bit better. Even thought I am the nominator I will change my vote to Keep. I won't however withdraw the nomination because there are delete votes on it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This should be in a larger article about the Torpedo System. --JD554 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: much better now under the new name and with extra info. Changed vote to Keep. --JD554 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - substantial rewrite addressed article's needs. Flibirigit (talk) 19:24, 6 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 Speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim per A7 Dlohcierekim 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan cully[edit]

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

An non-notable biographical article bordering on nonsense. Kakofonous (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Will leave a redirect to All for You (album). Neıl ☎ 10:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust A Try[edit]

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

    it talks about an unreleased track and so it should be deleted Olliyeah (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep I was just about to pipe in and say DELETE until I googled it. The article needs cites, but you can download the mp3 in several places. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Please take a loot at WP:MUSIC. Individual songs should not have articles unless they meet specific notability criteria which do not include google-hits and so on. The so called "google" test means absolutely nothing with regards to these pages unless they uncover some major controversy, academic discussion, notability of the song as a cultural icon, extremely relevant in the shaping of the band's history, and so on. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the album article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 16:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Start Anew[edit]

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

    The article has no substance, if you want keep this few information put it into the album article Olliyeah (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep the single was released. I see articles for singles all the time (I know, not a reason, but still...) Seems that releasing a single, even if as a single, by a notable musician, is notable. Pharmboy (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, a released single (not just a promo) from a notable artist. Cannot be merged into the album's article, because it isn't included on any of Jackson's standard albums, only as a bonus track on a few pressings of the Japanese edition. – Alensha talk 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment She seems to have a few singles that were released as singles only, off album, etc. Maybe a single article with all of them would be a reasonable compromise to allow them to be listed (can't be merged, there is no album). Pharmboy (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Apart from this one, those are not only her singles, but duets with other artists (Luther Vandross, Shaggy, Michael Jackson, Blackstreet, Busta, Beenie Man, etc.) so they couldn't be in an article simply titled Janet Jackson singles. – Alensha talk 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As per below, assertions that sources exist are very unconvincing if you fail to provide any, instead insulting the nominator. Neıl ☎ 10:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Love And My Best Friend[edit]

    Love And My Best Friend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    It has no use and sources are missing Olliyeah (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • speedy keep and archive AFD Again, it needs sources but it claims it was released, even if not in the USA. You have nom'ed a bunch of similar articles, and frankly, your nom is fatally flawed as "of no use" and "sources are missing" are NOT legitimate reasons for an AFD. There is no way to delete under the nomination you have given. Pharmboy (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for Pharmboy's reasons--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge and redirect. Failure to provide references is a reason to delete the article. An assertion of notability is worthless if you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence to back it up. Neıl ☎ 10:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't Mess Up This Good Thing[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Don't Mess Up This Good Thing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The article is too vague and has no soures Olliyeah (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and redirect to Janet Jackson. The article makes it's own case for non-notability. Since the article only contains three sentences, I won't even bother copy/pasting my reasoning, because that would be the entire article! Yngvarr 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • speedy keep or merge Again, needing references (or "vague") isn't a reason to delete an article and is a non-argument for deletion, unless you can point to the Wikipedia policy that states this. If sources can't be FOUND (assuming you first look) then that is a reason, via WP:V and WP:RS. Nom is fatally flawed for non reason. Pharmboy (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Pharmboy, nominating obviously notable singles could be seen as disruptive.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ferrini[edit]

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

    Another procedural nomination. As every XfD regular (and newcomers who nominate articles in good faith and get bitten for their pains) is painfully reminded every so often, the cricketer biographical notability criteria differ from the usual WP:BIO criteria. I appreciate that for, say, football a full international would automatically be notable, but does a member of the Italian cricket team qualify in the same way? Procedural nomination — I really can't make up my mind about this one — so I abstain. I've crossposted a note regarding this AfD at WikiProject Cricket as the participants there are most likely to have opinons on the matter. — iridescent 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. If he had actually played in the World Cricket League it might have been a more difficult decision, but it looks like he didn't get a game even though he was in the squad.[40] [41] [42] [43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete He's not played for the Italian national team yet, and has not played at first-class or List A level, so is not really notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per previous comments. Also commment: I find your preamble slightly provocative. The cricket notability guidelines are not supposed to be different from WP:BIO, they're supposed to explain what the Athletes section of WP:BIO means in the context of cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree it should have been worded better - what I was trying to say was, cricket for historical reasons (multiple variants & offshoots, a tradition of amateurs at even the highest level, mostly not included in the Olympics, and for most of its history no clear-cut league pyramid) doesn't have as clear-cut a definition of "the highest level" as most other sports. — iridescent 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:28, 1 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 Keep; (also included discussion at Talk:Shoegazing in this decision.) JERRY talk contribs 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Scene That Celebrates Itself[edit]

    The Scene That Celebrates Itself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article need not exist. It's just a journalistic reference to 'shoegazing'. Despite this, people have not explained why this should not be merged and redirected into that article. What stand-alone notability does this term have? I've tried redirecting it, but I got reverted so brought here for further discussion of whether this is worth an encyclopedia article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The term itself is notable, but only in the context of the shoegazing scene; accordingly, I recommend a merge to shoegazing. -- The Anome (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Shoegazing. This is a tough call. The references sited don't do a terribly good job of establishing the term as being used signifigantly outside of shoegazing, and a Google search seems to support this. Still, arguments are given on the Shoegazing talk page that it is not fully a subset of shoegazing. Perhaps some of the information could be merged into a more generic superset article, on the order of indie rock or something, I'm really not sure. -Verdatum (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge and redirect to shoegazing Doc Strange (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This was discussed on the Shoegazing talk page and consensus was to keep 2 separate articles, so the redirect was reverted in keeping with consensus. The Scene That Celebrates Itself was not just another name for Shoegazing, despite the usage that has arisen since. Since several of the bands labelled as being in The Scene That Celebrates Itself were not by any stretch of the imagination Shoegazing bands, merging into the Shoegazing article makes no sense whatsoever.--Michig (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The nomination states that it is just a journalistic reference to shoegazing. That is not true, summarizing this discussion. -- Pepve (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is not synonymous with the shoegazing genre. As discussed in the John Harris book Britpop!: Cool Britannia and the Spectacular Demise of English Rock (2004), the term was applied to bands that socialized at the Syndrome club in London. Among these band were definitely some shoegaze groups (Lush, Chapterhouse, Slowdive) but also the likes of Blur, the Senseless Things, the House of Love, Five Thirty, and others. Melody Maker was mocking the smugness of the London indie scene in general at the time with the name. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:51, 2 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 -Pilotguy contact tower 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts[edit]

    Indonesia LIMA Top 50 Charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    There are no reliable sources on the site! it should be deletedOlliyeah (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was written in Feb 2007. There are no sources. I looked and could not find any. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:15, 11 June 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 already redirected. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Star Wars: Battlefront series[edit]

    Star Wars: Battlefront series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Duplicate at Star Wars: Battlefront (series) Yzmo talk 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Balamokh[edit]

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

    Appears to be a fairly blatant hoax; while I realise the google test is meaningless, not a single google hit on a political party leader seems a bit dubious, and if his "special secret training" really happened, how come Wikipedia knows about it? Contested prod on the unusual grounds that "a hoax can't be prodded", which if true is a policy change that seems to have passed me by... — iridescent 14:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Under the same assessment as above. For what it's worth, Delta Force Dagger is vaguely reminiscent of a game named Delta Force: Task Force Dagger Yngvarr 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete nonsense article.--Pmedema (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete - hoax. (which in my humble opinion should be a speedy criterion) Addhoc (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Avruchtalk 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Highbeam search also reveal ZERO hits, hoax.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:44, 5 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. Kurykh 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List Of Celebrities With The First Name Seth[edit]

    List Of Celebrities With The First Name Seth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Delete This topic do not deserve for encyclopedic standard. If it become encyclopedic, then numerous such articles can be created, that list of celebreties with first name Tom, list of celebreties with first name Britney etc. etc. So I nominating this unencyclopedic topic for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete What was the point of this list? What next, Notable people named John? Lawrence Cohen 23:07, 3 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcos Valdés[edit]

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

    (Bizarrely) contested prod, so over it comes... Could probably be A7'd, let alone prodded, but since I know nothing about the subject bringing it over for a consensus. — iridescent 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) — iridescent 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Has an IMDB entry with seven appearances and a reasonable presence on Spanish (I presume) web sites. One for the experts but looks like a keep to me - although it obviously needs turning into something more than a one line article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Article admittedly doesn't claim notability, but he appears to be part of the cast of a telenovella that I suppose is notable since in ran on Telemundo for 120 episodes[here], also appeared in a made for tv movie in 2004 [here]. I added these as references, but I'm not knowledgeable about the subject to expand the article. Xymmax (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. What's so bizarre about contesting a prod for a subject which has these hits in a Google news archive search? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If that's not a rhetorical question - because the version as prodded & contested had no information, no references & no assertion of notability, and could have been speedied let alone prodded. — iridescent 18:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. But in my edit summary when I contested the deletion, before you Afded this with your bizarre comment that the contestion was bizarre, I referred to the Google News archive results. Couldn't you have taken a few seconds to check that out before rushing to AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. CSD G7 (only author requests deletion) also applies. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Irevna[edit]

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

    Delete No sign of notability. The only sign of notability given here is that "it is a global leader in offshore equity", but there is no evidence that it is a global leader. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete Not asserting any notability, seems to be an easy speedy candidate. Pharmboy (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional Delete - I've already speedied a spammier version of this article under G11 earlier today. This version isn't as biased, so I tagged it for cleanup but I agree as it stands it doesn't warrant keeping. I'm willing to accept that it may well be a notable company, and if reliable sources are added by the time the five days are up to demonstrate notability, I'll change to keep. — iridescent 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - The article seems to be about a genuine business or commercial establishment. True, the article looks like an advertisement but it could be rewritten and references could be added. - 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. Personally, I'd have speedied this version had I come across it on NP patrol. But happy to give the originating editor time to find references proving notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I am the originating editor of this page, a first timer at that (:-), and will certainly try my best to re-write this. In the interim, please could you delete the entire history of this, so I may write afresh after referring to how some other organisations may have done so. Ramyakrishnananil (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy Delete A7/G11 - no assertion of notability. This was an ad, not an encyclopedia article. Resolute 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ip2location[edit]

    Ip2location (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article has been speedied, and it's been prodded, and it keeps coming back. Just for the sake of fairness, can we run it through AfD for a bit and establish a clear consensus about it? it does have a few sources cited, after all. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete Has one cite that meets wp:rs (the microsoft thing is just as much an ad as anything). Article is still an ad for a product that has received no significant coverage OUTSIDE its industry, only a single mention in Wired (which was a passing mention, not an article about the product). IP2location is a registered trademark, and doesn't pass NEO or NOTABILITY here. Pharmboy (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. This article seems to reek of WP:SPAM, and the logo almost certainly doesn't meet WP:FU criteria... If someone were to re-write the aticle to not read like an advertisement, with proper sources, I'd be willing to change my views. But, I suspect that this won't happen. Also, the sources currently cited are not entirely useful. Using a company's web site as a primary source doesn't quite count, in my book. Nor does being mentioned in a sentence clause in a news article. And the MSDN Magazine link is really just a list of ads... So, I count this as unsourced, at the moment. (Full disclosure: I've used this company's products in the past, and my opinions expressed here are in no way influenced by the experience.) -- Lewellyn talk 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete for lack of reliable third-party references to verify notability.PeaceNT (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Bulgo[edit]

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

    Disputed prod. Non-notable actor who fails WP:BIO which requires "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" having so far only appeared in a handful of supporting roles (as confirmed by the article itself). Google fails to find any coverage outside IMDB type listing sites [44] and a news (including archives) search comes up blank [45] nancy (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1095564/ is his imdb profile. There are no little roles, only little actors. Pharmboy (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak delete Looking at the reference, most of his filmography involves appearences in short films. I am willing to admit that short films can be notable, but absent notable awards or something similar, I have no basis to conclude that these are. And, they're really short - the first film is 5 min long, the next one's 8 min, and the next one is 4 minutes. He did appear in Elizabeth, and that was a major film. However, I have not seen it, so if someone can attest that his role as "Mary's secretary" was notable I'll change my vote. For now, though, I think he doesn't quite qualify. Xymmax (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Supporting does not always mean insignificant, and he does have a few of them; the productions themselves are notable enough. CM (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Significant roles in notable films? Pharmboy cites his IMDB "profile", which shows little more than his height and his roles in the five films noted above. Inclusion on IMDB is not standalone ground for notability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 21:27, 6 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 keep, though the article does need work, and nearly everyone admits. Wizardman 16:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Debates on the grammar school[edit]

    Debates on the grammar school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article appears to be beyond saving. Original research from start to finish, no sources, references or any attributions. Full of bias and in no way keeps a neutral point of view. Fails all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I would suggest a merge with Tripartite System, but the fact that none of this material is verified or neutral, leads me to suggest that it should be deleted. EJF (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong keep. This is a very important topic relating to education in the UK. There are only 164 grammar schools left and the debate continues to this day about the merits or otherwise of what was originally conceived as a tripartite system but which was never properly implemented in the way that it was conceived. The article, although unsourced, does represent both sides of the debate quite fairly. The article should be improved and referenced not deleted. Dahliarose (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete maybe there is a potential for such an article to exist, but the problems here are so extreme I see no reasonable way to salvage it (per WP:RUBBISH). Anyone wishing to prove me wrong should start editing this article severely post-haste. -Verdatum (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. An interesting and relevant debate. Improve the article instead of deleting it. MikeHobday (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I thought that we had moved on from trying to delete articles because they are a mess. Plainly this page has multiple problems but the subject is important and encyclopaedic. It is still ongoing and recently almost split the Tories see here. Tagging for improvement is the way to go. I would add that sticking ((fact)) tags everywhere doesn't help either, it just makes the page hard to read - better to put the necessary tags at the top of the page. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • String keep per Dahliarose and TerriersFan. The article could use some serious sourcing, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I added a source to support two or three points. It's a start. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article may be bad, but the subject is encyclopaedic, and that is what AfD is meant to judge. This is a serious political issue in the UK, and a good article could be written here, even if this isn't it. Terraxos (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep WP:AFD is the wrong process to address the problems with this article, the correct process is WP:EDIT. JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. This is an important debate. Those now using their energies to complain about lack of attribution should use those same energies to research the attributions(nobody knowledgeable about the subject would dispute the broad facts being debated, nor do I believe they are disputed. Referencing them is just a matter of hard slog). If the contentious and uncritical entry on, say 'ADHD', can survive unthreatened, then this certainly should. Could the objections have been raised by anti-selection dogmatists embarrassed by the weight of argument in favour of academic selection? Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:15, 5 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. Neıl ☎ 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TCS Confederation[edit]

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

    procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Previously considered at AFD as part of a massive multiple nomination. PROD nominator states: "Does this ship have any real-world notability?" I would answer this "no, it does not". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalion[edit]

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

    Looks to me like a blatant hoax, from which I've already removed some glaring BLP violations. Even if it's not a hoax, I severely doubt that an unreleased game is likely to be notable. Hoax isn't a speedy criteria etc etc etc (and I think it doesn't quite qualify for an A7) so over it comes... — iridescent 13:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Hoax. "the mortal wounding" of a developer who recovered? Harumph, last I checked, a mortal wound was just that. In any event, it's an unfinished and unreleased game. There's no backing references that I could find, and given the nature of the game (online) there should be something. Yngvarr 13:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If it's not a hoax, it is certainly not notable. If unreleased IRC scripts are notable, I've got dozens to add! But, seriously, the article has enough flaws that fixing them would leave less than a paragraph. Lack of content + lack of notability + lack of sources = Delete. I almost suspect that "pitiful failure" was self-referential... -- Lewellyn talk 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete agreed Hoax or no, it is NN. --Pmedema (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neıl ☎ 10:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of objects in Bionicle[edit]

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

    original research list of non-notable fictional objects with no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Wow, and it is short explanations from other articles that need deleting/combining/something. Per nom. Pharmboy (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Instead of going around other Bionicle articles looking for the information on the objects that are listed you could just look in one place.Swirlex (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be great on a Bionicle wiki, but not here. Ridernyc (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is fancruft and belongs to a Bionicle fan site. CG (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge anything useful such as the ships to bionicle but delete the article as an unlikely redirect.--CastAStone//(talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki to Bioniclepedia It appears that due to issues of notability WP:FICT and WP:PLOT a major effort needs to be done to move quite a bit of these Bionicle pages somewhere else. I'd say someone needs to notify WikiProject Lego but they are tagged as inactive. -Verdatum (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to notify wikiproject Lego when I tagged these articles, I'm the one who tagged it as inactive. I always try to notify and give a chance for improvement but in this case it's pretty clear people are just going to keep removing the tags with out dealing with the issues. Ridernyc (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak procedural keep until all its subarticles are merged/deleted. It's hard to cleanup fiction subarticles if you cannot find them (I know that some/most are already listed in the template, but this list here is at least trying to provide some necessary WP:Summary style). – sgeureka t•c 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:56, 1 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 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. Tevildo (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    America's Extreme Top Model[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    America's Extreme Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-existent TV programme, only external link is to a Youtube site. No assertions of notability. Approaches the level of a hoax. See also other contributions by this editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT and WP:NONSENSE Doc Strange (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result wasdelete. DS (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    America's Extreme Top Model, Cycle 1[edit]

    America's Extreme Top Model, Cycle 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a hoax, along with other articles created by this editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result wasdelete. DS (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kamer Zuid[edit]

    Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits to this TV series, only external link (a Youtube video) has been removed. This article seems to be an extended test, with a table in it belonging to one of the editor's other contributions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Hogan (missionary)[edit]

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

    A missionary in Mexico, but lacks any notability. Jmlk17 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep and Stubify. While the article as it stands is no good at all, and the man is a very marginal case(and a complete kook), he does pass the "multiple non-trivial" test as evidenced by this very restrictive Google news archive search. Lobojo (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Dubious assertions; lots of factual uncertainties. Delete w/o prejudice for better article to be written. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 18:45, 30 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, Hut 8.5 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete looks like it was made to be the biography on someone's webpage. so it violates WP:NOT#WEBSPACE Doc Strange (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I actually don't think he even passes the notability test. He has a significant internet presence, however, I don't see independent reliable sources covering him in a non trivial way. Even the hit cited about do not, to be, appear to qualify. Xymmax (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:BIO, violates WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep While the man does not get much coverage from mainstream sources that have written him off a priori because of the extreme nature of his lifestyle and claims, he does get a tremendous amount of attention from Christian groups all throughout the internet, making him very notable. DavidPesta (talk) 18:16, 4 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. Kurykh 05:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiith Somtaaw[edit]

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

    in-universes article about a clan from the homeworld series of games. Ridernyc (talk) 06:43, 25 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, Hut 8.5 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as with the others, no out-of-universe context; unlikely to have any independent, reliable coverage; contributor should consider a gaming wiki instead. Marasmusine (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In-universe, no reliable secondary sources, notability not demonstrated. Someone another (talk) 16:11, 4 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. Kurykh 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiith[edit]

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

    Homeworld article about a non-notable aspect of game play. This article has no context to anyone not playing the game,. Ridernyc (talk) 06:42, 25 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, Hut 8.5 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Associated contributors should consider a gaming wiki instead. Marasmusine (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please provide proof of said gaming wiki's ability to provide NPOV, verifiability, improvement, availability, maintenance and survival and I'll be right with you. --Kizor 19:18, 3 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. Neıl ☎ 10:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2River[edit]

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

    procedural nomination—version at time of AFD: This survived as 'keep' when previously at AFD in April 2006, albeit there was only one opinion provided. PROD nominator (82.11.63.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) stated "Non notable, no reliable sources". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If it has been around that long, then 3rd party verification should have been there. I didn't find any on the article. A quick googling shows Cafepress, Wikipedia and a bunch of blogs. They don't claim notability, they claim clients with notability and can't provide citations. Non-notable and spam to boot. Pharmboy (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Progenitor (Homeworld)[edit]

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

    in-universes article about a race from the homeworld series of games. Ridernyc (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Balcora[edit]

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

    in-universe article about a non-notable location in the homeworld series of games., Ridernyc (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no out-of-universe perspective, would seem unlikely to have any reliable, independent coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination and Marasmusine. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Zero out-of-universe information or references, non-notable. Someone another (talk) 12:21, 1 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 Keep JERRY talk contribs 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tatto media[edit]

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

    non-notable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    notable for awards / ties to affiliate marketting. See Azoogle --68.119.196.183 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Any resolution to this? --Wallaby (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Despite the fact that it's probably COI - I can't imagine a random person would have entered this - it actually has some factual basis of interest (BW Top 25 something or other) and doesn't read like horrible blatant spam. Would probably be fine and address your concerns if rewritten with a little more basis (more refs). I think it's about the company anyway, not so much the web site. ΨνPsinu 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep based on the Business Week coverage. I did some basic cleanup: stubbing, weasel words and fluffing of the references. There's probably more that can be done. Yngvarr 12:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why delete it? It's legit information. They were in Business week and it's a good resource for company info for people in the advertising field. I say leave it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.63.221 (talk) 06:49, 2 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. Wizardman 01:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Franklin Elementary School (Royal Oak, Michigan)[edit]

    Franklin Elementary School (Royal Oak, Michigan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Inappropriate material; school does not appear to exist anyway ΨνPsinu 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Important Comment Before registering your esteemed opinions here, please look at the article. This isn't being AfDed because it's an elementary school, or because it's not notable, or whathaveyou - it's because it's clearly a kiddie entry about a school that may not even exist anymore. It should have been speedied, but I think this morning's Speedy Delete Overlord just kind of knee-jerked with a literal interpretation of CSD A7. It doesn't appear that this is a viable entry, not even as a stub. ΨνPsinu 11:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Not for people, and certainly not for communities that had no notability prior to disbanding. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Blanchardb's comment. The article doesn't look very professional and has no valuable information in the first place. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The school was town down; the school was awesome? Does not an article make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Nothing notable about the lunch monitors. Strandwolf (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No decision yet but there is a possible article concerning the closing and sale. GoogleNews. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Royal Oak Neighborhood Schools. I suspect the most logical place for discussion of the consolidation issue is in context on the board article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article linked above only has a mention that it was sold in 2005. ΨνPsinu 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand your comment. Were you speaking of my GoogleNews link? That links to at least three dozen articles about the school, mostly concerning the controversy surrounding the closing, sale, and demolition of the 75-year-old school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no articles for schools that aren't around unless there's some serious notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. From WP:N (schools), an admitted work in progress: "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist." This school most likely does not exist any longer; see the education section on this Wiki page. I can't find a definitive statement that it was torn down, but everything points to it, including this article itself. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and listify in appropriate district article. There is no content there to merge, and a nonexistent school is highly unlikley to generate any further coverage and suddenly become notable. But I love the quote: "Put the snow. On the ground". We should find somewhere to put that. jk. JERRY talk contribs 00:32, 4 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. Kurykh 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    River of Life Assembly of God[edit]

    River of Life Assembly of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    An advertising piece for a non notable church. Harland1 (t/c) 10:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No independent sources, no particular claim of notability, spammy in tone. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Throw into the River of Deletion Not so much advertising as blatant preaching. This isn't the place for that. ΨνPsinu 11:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not create this article for advertisement but for information.... River of Life Assembly of God is the fasted growing Church in the Minot area. It has gone from a congregation of 35 to over 200 in under 6 weeks. As I understand, Wikipedia is an information site... all I have wrote about River of Life is information and i will continue to edit.... I have not included its specific location or other advertising devices. Minot citizens are curious about this fast growing Church and curiosity should be met with nothing else than a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrb53 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

    This was posted on my talk page so I moved it here so people could see it, for what it's worth. Harland1 (t/c) 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If indeed "Minot citizens are curious about this fast growing Church," then why don't they just GO THERE? It's not like Minot, North Dakota is Los Angeles or Tokyo. "Curiosity should be met with nothing else than a wikipedia page"? It's astounding that religion flourished before Wikipedia, what with the crippling lack of ability to get the word out before then. Sheesh. ΨνPsinu 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per WP:SOAP, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. Wikipedia is not an information site. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:CORP; no assertion of notability and no cites, nor does it seem likely that there would be any, based on a description of size and "growing". Mere "growth" is hardly notable anyway. We don't have articles on every single black hole. --Lquilter (talk) 18:36, 5 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. Kurykh 05:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Coffee House (film)[edit]

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

    Seems to be purely promotional and badly formatted. Triwbe (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • DELETE BECAUSE IT IS THOROUGHLY NON-NOTABLE AND HAS ALMOST NO PUNCTUATION AND THE WRITER HAS A JAMMED CAPS LOCK KEY ΨνPsinu 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and possibly redirect to Marwah Films & Video Studios (altho that particular article appears to have it's own set of issues...). There is no context in the nominated article, other than a (possible) two sentence description. Everything else is fluff. Yngvarr 11:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not even a redirect. Most of the article is about Marwah anyway. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 12:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article does not provide any indication of meeting guidelines of WP:CORP, obvious advertising. Article was created by and maintained by WP:SPA accounts with no other edits other than related to Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. →This is a Part of a long history of Spam WP:SOCK and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Association_of_Certified_Anti-Money_Laundering_Specialists Hu12 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think this reads like an advert. It used to but I feel I cleaned it up to read as an information only article. However, I agree it doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:CORP, and really does exist only to promote itself. Resolute 15:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as with my original proposal for deletion I still don't think this is a noteworthy organisation. Pontificake (talk) 21:03, 2 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. -- Longhair\talk 07:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuzzlock[edit]

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

    non-notable neologism. Lankiveil (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No evidence of widespread use (or any use) supplied at all. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While ghits aren't a reliable a measure of notability, in this case, it can be a fair measure of non-notability, with a total of nine hits, most of which are character names in World of Warcraft or other pseudonyms. Even if this ever becomes a wide-spread neologism, it would better serve in wictionary. Yngvarr 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article itself calls the term part of a 'craze', thus wp:neo applies. Pharmboy (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unencyclopedic.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above and replace in Wikitionary (if you wish to try your luck).--VS talk 23:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete PN and ors. WP:HOLE, and i'm a 7th generation Australian and i've never heard this word used before. Thewinchester (talk) 14:08, 2 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 No concensus (default keep).JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slaveevi Noshti[edit]

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

    Non-notable dance festival. Googling for it only yields 130 hits, and there is no article for it on the Bulgarian Wiki (see here). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete if it's that non-notable, why wasn't it tagged for speedy deletion in the first place? Pumpmeup 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably because HA didn't see this as something which fits speedy deletion criteria. Just being non-notable doesn't qualify something for speedy deletion. From WP:CSD: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead". Along the same lines, this article doesn't meet the A7 criteria (which is what you tagged it with), since it's a festival. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. It doesn't really fit any of the CSD criteria (not a band, group, bio, etc) and AfD will get the job done all the same. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 07:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    I'm declining the speedy on this article as it does make sense, it asserts notability, and has plenty of reference sources. This is a national festival and competition which has been held for more than 37 years and is dedicated to the most famous and beloved Bulgarian composer. There's plenty of references and newspapers articles written about it, they are just not in English, but in Bulgarian.

    Here are some examples: http://www.bourgas.org/bourgas-news-9454-bg.html#, http://events.dir.bg/_wm/news/news.php?nid=21995&df=5787&dflid=3. Here's the official schedule on the town's site http://aitos.org/info.php?id=478&cat_parent=414. Here are some pictures from the festival: http://www.snimka.bg/album.php?album_id=42796&photo=7).

    If this festival was not notable, it wouldn't be published or written about by the Ministry of Culture either: http://www.mc.government.bg/calc.php?c=497&q=%F4%EE%EB%EA%EB%EE%F0%ED%E8.

    Finally, I intend to translate this article into Bulgarian and Spanish as well.

    Thank you! --NeoOrpheus (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep per the sources existing.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless better sources are provided. The sources all appear to be of the "local news" variety. Any town's newspaper will publish information about a local event, but let's see national coverage of it before we declare that this small town event is notable. Corvus cornixtalk 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you tell? They're all in Bulgarian, and I'm guessing that there's only one person in this AfD who can translate and make a claim either way. If the article does fail WP:N, that's one thing, but if we're guessing that it fails it because we can't read the language which the citations are in, that's just speculation. I haven't the slightest idea whether the articles are local or national in focus. I tend to hold to a pretty strict standard of notability myself, but articles shouldn't be deleted based on us guessing that a source may be insufficient because we can't translate it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can tell by looking at the URL of the links and seeing that it's a page devoted to local news for this small town. Corvus cornixtalk 18:18, 2 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 no consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wall of Shame[edit]

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

    This neologism is a metaphor, not a meme. Just because it has appeared in usage doesn't make it encyclopedic. Aaronbrick (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Just a definition of an occasionally-used phrase. <eleland/talkedits> 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep. No idea what is meant by "This neologism is a metaphor, not a meme." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that it's a concept which has no meaning on its own. Aaronbrick (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I don't see why this is proposed as an AfD rationale. For comparison,
    Both of these examples have gone through extensive AfD, WP:RM, WP:RfAr and/or other cycles. "Not having a meaning on its own" has no other implications than this: such concepts only have a meaning given them by people. The same applies to (for instance): Truth, the Poincaré conjecture, and nearly any other concept one can imagine. Such reasonings are not part of Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you have your methodology under control, which I appreciate. Still, both those examples are obviously about going concerns. There is no evidence that any of the politicans quoted as saying "Wall of Shame" were referring to the same thing. By this standard we should have articles for every metaphor used in a political speech. Aaronbrick (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't say that: I said whether or not it is a metaphor is as irrelevant in an AfD debate as whether or not it is a sheep. Of course we don't have articles on every sheep that ever existed (did you hear me say that?). But we have on some, here's an example: Dolly. If you had said "Wall of Shame is a meme" (which it isn't according to what you said), then that would have been an argument with some weight in an AfD debate while we try to avoid articles about (for example) internet memes, in line with Wikipedia:Notability (web).
    Re. "There is no evidence that any of the politicans quoted as saying "Wall of Shame" were referring to the same thing." - There is evidence they were referring to different things: some were referring to the Berlin wall, others to other walls. See references in the Wall of Shame article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep This passes the wp:neo sniff test, and is used well beyond the bounds of a singlular instance. It is a common phrase, as is Hall of shame, which would be a good topic to redirect to this as well. Valid, notable, heavily used in multiple communities, transends any singular use, keep. Pharmboy (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already is a redirect, as both phrases are heavily used and transend wp:neo. Pharmboy (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Francis. -Justin (koavf)·T·
    • keep Keith Harris - newsmedianews. This is a valid term which has been adopted into general usage and which is eminently identified in its use with the Berlin Wall. It is fitting that such a term continues to describe barriers that are viewed in similar manner to the Berlin Wall.

    C·M 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, this article is an original synthesis in violation of WP:SYN, and it is mostly unsourced. The well-sourced application of the phrase applies to the Berlin Wall, but that can be handled at Berlin Wall. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I can't see a delete based on WP:SYN applying here. First, wp:syn isn't a reason to delete nor does it claim to be. It is a reason to improve (or please show me where it is in wikipedia policy). Second, what little that *may* meet syn could easy be edited out and is limited to Criticism of purpose section. This is the proverbial Throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach to AFD. Pharmboy [User talk:Pharmboy|talk]]) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the same thing as Wall of Shame/Hall of Shame, which can be 'imaginary' as well. Pharmboy (talk) 03:33, 5 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. Kurykh 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Banner[edit]

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

    No such listing found in Billboard 100 for any permutation of this name; part of the article refers to another article Chris Brown; I suggest this is a hoax/vancruftspamtisement that doesn't meet WP:BAND, WP:Verifiable Accounting4Taste:talk 06:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I agree with the speedy deletion; just wanted the full AfD process because I don't want this hoax to come sneaking back in. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as per WP:BAND. Seems to be a hoax. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete as hoax, and in fact I would say to uphold my original speedy delete: A7 as this contains no assertion of notability (unless you count the inflated sales count...). Obvious WP:COI issues as well. --Kinu t/c 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. The (probably bogus) sales count probably counts as an assertion of notability, I'm afraid. Lankiveil (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete - Tiptoety talk 08:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Brazilian Job[edit]

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

    Disputed PROD; Films not yet in production do not meet Wikipedia policy (specifically, WP:NFF) or Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; for the next year, this would only be potentially suitable as a paragraph in the article about the film for which it MIGHT be a sequel Accounting4Taste:talk 05:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Hook organs[edit]

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

    So the prod was removed with the reason that "Removing prod since this is the 2nd longest page in wikipedia". I'm thinking this is merely a copy of a list from some archive and therefore falls in WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Also, its unsourced. Lastly, I can't see this ever being a useful list or article, unsalvagable. MBisanz 05:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as the article's creator, I give my blessing. I wanted to move the extremely incomplete list from article about the builder, but figured some folks would flip if there wasn't a list SOMEWHERE. But I'm no more in favor of that huge list than anyone else. Please, delete it. BTW, it was sourced from the OHS database. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not a useful list. The gigantic size of the article should have no bearing on issues like this. Lankiveil (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete. As an Inclusionist, I tried to make the list useful by reducing its size and simplifying its format. It was an interesting exercise in edit skills ... not much more. I would like to suggest that a link be added to the basic E. and G.G. Hook & Hastings article that would direct readers to the OHS database mentioned by the article's creator, just in case they might want this info. Truthanado (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete long page of totally useless information. The person who created this list who actually voted "delete" above (if that's damning i don't know what is) should transwiki this to a new Wiki if he thinks that someone would ever want to read this Doc Strange (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unencyclopedic information.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete if this info is available elsewhere on the web, or otherwise transwiki to Pipe Organs Wiki (http://pipeorgans.wikia.com/). This info could well be useful, I just don't think en-Wiki is the place for it. The US badly needs an equivalent of Britain's National Pipe Organ Register, which aims to register details of every pipe organ in this country. Such is the size of the US that it might need to be done state-by-state, but that's not for me to decide.--Vox Humana 8' 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not a repository. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:05, 4 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. Kurykh 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TCS Tarawa[edit]

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

    procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Previously considered at AFD as part of a massive multiple nomination. PROD nominator states: "Does this ship have any real-world notability?" I would answer this with an echoing "no". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    L.U.V. Pow[edit]

    L.U.V. Pow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in May and was recently rePROD'd. The PR OD nominator states "This show had been speculated to be aired in 2007. GMA has not yet released a press statement whether this show will still be aired." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - while it has quite a few references, its multiple postponements isn't a good sign for its future airing, so delete per WP:CRYSTAL with no prejudice against recreation if it ever does actually air. Collectonian (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete - This show was supposed to be aired in 2007. Well, the year's about to end and there are no press releases or announcements by GMA Network that this show will still be aired. -Danngarcia (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the postponements would indicate that its dubious this will ever air. It happens all of the time. Not otherwise notable. Lankiveil (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete per Danngarcia--Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. No official release from GMA or (even better) no airtime, no article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is no green light as far as I know. Starczamora (talk) 08:54, 4 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. Kurykh 05:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vibroacoustic medicine[edit]

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

    As written, this article has a number of serious issues. First of all, it was written as a promotional piece by User:Arthrifon to promote his company (Arthrifon, Inc). Furthermore, although it references a number of research articles, it is unclear whether these articles represent scientific consensus on the subject, and a number of significant claims aren't referenced - the claim that diseases can be detected with "tiny probes connected to electronic microscopes" seems particularly suspect. Another article by the same author (VibroAcoustic therapy) was deleted recently. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing on My Back[edit]

    Nothing on My Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No sources. The article has no information on the song besides that a live video was made and that it is a track on the album All Killer No Filler by Sum 41. Timmehcontribs 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Cultures in Harmony"[edit]

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

    Non-notable organization attempting to promote self. —BoL 04:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manic Sewing Circle[edit]

    Manic Sewing Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Also nominating the following related pages because -- non-notable recording by this band
    Summer Spins EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Accounting4Taste:talk 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Contested Prod.

    Non-notable band.

    Can't find much press, one record is self-released, other is on a non-notable label. Hasn't toured outside of USA. Carados (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Ska is dead. Wait no, wrong comment: Could that Morning TV show they performed the fight song on be enough? It needs to be verified, and if the show is notable, then it might be enough. 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Delete per Wwwhatsup and WP:BAND. J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I've added a couple of refs to the article including a link to the vid on YouTube. You'll hear the announcer state at the beginning that it's just one of a series that they are running of fans doing Bears songs, thus the the group was not particularly notable for doing that itself. In 2007 at least they played just 4 dates on the Warped Tour, not too notable, and no cited press. The band doesn't have two albums on a leading indie. So it fails per WP:NMG. Sorry to say. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails the WP:MUSIC standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 1 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 speedy keep. Rigadoun (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    StandWithUs[edit]

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

    Nothing in this article even attempts to make claims of notability. There are sources which might make them somewhat notable, but there's nothing in the article which even addresses the information in the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep --- lots and lots of sources, most of them crappy, none of them reflected in the article; I see why it hit AfD, but it needs cleanup, not deletion. --- tqbf 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The article has cites to the International Herald Tribune, Ynetnews, and Jewish Journal, all with specific coverage of the organization. A search of Google News shows five more current articles about the organization. That clearly satisfies the basic criterion of Wikipedia notabilty: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NOTE. There's no requirement that a Wikipedia article explicitly claim its own subject is notable, nor is that common practice. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      An article that makes no attempt to establish why it's notable lacks an "assertion of notability", and can be speedily deleted for it. I agree with your argument, but as a process matter, Corvus isn't wrong. --- tqbf 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Good point. I've cleaned up the article and added some sections showing newsworthy activities by the organization, with appropriate references to mainstream press sources. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - This AfD immediately follows a vandalism attempt by an anon. See User talk:70.251.83.141. Prior to that, nobody had made a substantive edit to the article in months. Not sure what's going on here. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Nagle's edits may help this article to just barely scrape through on notability, only in that it addresses its sources, though it still doesn't say much about what makes the site notable. I'll withdraw my nom. Corvus cornixtalk 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    TVXQ videos[edit]

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

    The artical contains uneccessary things and is just a list of TVXQ's pv's. It seem as if the one who created the page just wanted TVXQ to seem popular on wikipedia or something. SandylovesMicky (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Article is essentially WP:FAN, and a merge with TVXQ seems like it would disrupt the page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that.Too peachy (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't create this page just to make TVXQ seem popular on wikipedia. I thought it would be nice to share all the pv/mvs that they have created. I did put it on TVXQ Discography since I thought it fit in that page, but it got deleted, so I created this page. (Rosalietruong (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • Delete. But the page still doesn't have any sense at all. I would still go with deletion.206.40.103.149 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter to me if it is kept or deleted. Just wanted to share all the videos that they had made. (Rosalietruong (talk) 03:11, 6 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. Addhoc (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GamingShogun[edit]

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

    Prod removed by persistent WP:SPA (it was also previously speedied at Gamingshogun.com), so here we are. Non-notable, 4-month old website. Alexa rank well above (below?) 2 million. Second 'ref' razerzone.com participated in a giveaway contest with GamingShogun, so is hardly an independent, third-party reliable source. Shawis (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "Well" above (below) is inaccurate. The current Alexa ranking is 2,352,981. This is up from 5+ million just a couple months ago.MondoPest (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    • Delete not notable; seems to be advert --Mhking (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is informational just like Kotaku's or Gamespot's MondoPest (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    • Delete Only reference is to a site of questionable reliability itself. No independent reliable references. This is probably just a nudge above speediable, but I see nothing here to indicate an ultimately worthwhile subject for a wikipedia article yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not notable --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per failure of WP:WEB, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Razer did NOT participate in the giveaway. The giveaway was done independently, so Razer's references to the GamingShogun website are verifiable and notable as the Razerzone.com site is the OFFICIAL site of Razer USA Ltd. Also, I must apologize for the previous entry of gamingshogun.com, I am still new at the Wikipedia system and it was not well-formed. This entry, however, is not advertisement as stated before but purely informational regarding a website that may be ranked lower on Alexa (2,352,981 UP from 5+ Million two months ago!) but does have a popular (albeit niche) userbase. The Boomslang CE 07 mouse review has received over 600 views and is on the front page of Google when searching for 'Razer Boomslang CE 07 Review' terms. Surely, that is notable! MondoPest (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    "Participated" may not have been the ideal word choice, but since the prize in the giveaway was a "Razer Tarantula" gaming keyboard, I think there is obviously some form of cooperation between the companies. Neither company in a cross-promotion is a particularly reliable source for the other. Shawis (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no cross-promotion, we had the unit so we gave it away. We submitted the review to Razer after our review and they seemed to like it enough to put it on their site - same with the rest of the products we review. We are gamers and as such tend towards specific types of products. I hope I don't come off as defensive, but the site is basically a 'gamer-run' site and we put are heart and soul into it and feel the site has gotten large enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.MondoPest (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    Heck, look at an entry like Kotaku's. It is very similar and it is allowed. They do basically the same thing with giveaways, worse even as they DO 'sponsored' giveaways. MondoPest (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    If you are associated with the site, then to be honest, you shouldn't be making or contributing towards an article on it. Neutral point of view is a key Wikipedia policy, and what we have here is a conflict of interest. I suggest delete on principle. Marasmusine (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:WEB and an obvious WP:COI, (MondoPest is named in the article as a Contributing Editor) -- RoninBK T C 07:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. Possibly even a speedy under CSD G4. Lankiveil (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete. No reliable soures establish any sort of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, again, a multi-million dollar company's (Razer USA Ltd) referencing GamingShogun as a reputable press site is not notable or reliable? MondoPest (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    The problem with the Razer mentions is that they don't establish Gaming Shogun's notability. All it says is that they reviewed Razer's products, (and I'm not even going to factor in whether or not said review was compensated.) It doesn't say anything about whether or not Gaming Shogun is any more notable then a random schmuck's Blogger site. It adds up to what our guidelines call a "trivial mention." Besides, the Notability test requires multiple sources to establish notability.
    And to your comparison to Kotaku, et. al, no offense but you're no Kotaku -- RoninBK T C 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics, they do the same thing we do, the only difference is they have more users. How many users does it take to garner a wiki entry? Is there some specific number?75.22.80.118 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    It's not the amount of users, it's the number of nontrivial reliable sources written about the site. -- RoninBK T C 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh I see. Well I guess I can understand that. Sorry, again, I'm just being too defensive. We are not a huge corporation or anything, it is fan-run. So the two things I take from this debate are that we need more non-trivial references to the site and we need to have one of our users post the entry at that time, to avoid COI, correct? As far as format of the entry is concerned: Should there be any big changes aside from the adding of those non-trivial sources?MondoPest (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]
    First off, read Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Secondly, (and this is gonna sound kinda harsh,) forget about Wikipedia. Focus on growing your own website in normal ways. You'll know when you're big enough to be included on Wikipedia when one of your fans writes the article for you. -- RoninBK T C 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No harshness taken in the least, that is fine advice to be sure.MondoPest (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)MondoPest[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to keep. Bongwarrior (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul DeMaine[edit]

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

    This article asserts notability but does not show it. Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The person in question did indeed exist. He rcvd the German vonHumboldt award, which some consider not much less than a Nobel. His work was done largely before the Internet. If the only way you idiots can determine a fact is to Google it, you need to learn the word "library." I note the article has been defaced as well.
    • Comment. While I haven't quite sided with "delete" yet, the incredible paucity of ghits on this guy, combined with the complete absence of incoming links to his page in any substantive context brings me to question the truthfulness of this article. Specifically, I question the importance of his work, as presented in the article, which is the primary assertion of notability therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Re the truthfulness of the article: a Google scholar search indicates that this person did exist and publish academically in some of the areas listed in the article. It also doesn't show a lot of impact for his work. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless evidence of notabiliuty crops up. --Crusio (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both ghits and google scholar are not relevant for someone who did his work in the 1960s. DGG (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The problem is that google may well be the only reasonable method of testing it. If he is notable thanks to his work (as his article asserts without providing a single source), there will be reliable sources on him. Those sources are apparently not published on the internet, so...what? The only thing left would be to go through as many libraries and newspaper archives as we could find until satisfying ourselves that the sources don't exist. Proving non-notability is nearly impossible for pre-internet anything. But when no sources are provided or apparent, I think erring on the side of delete is quite reasonable. Someguy1221 (talk)
    • Comment. The truly notable computer scientists of the 1960s have citation records that still look notable in Google scholar today, because it includes the back issues of many important older CS journals and conferences. Try comparing, for instance, the Google scholar results of Sheila Greibach, and you'll see a big difference to the results from DeMaine. I'm not arguing that DeMaine's article should be deleted for being not as notable as Greibach, only that I think Google scholar negative results from that time frame may still be meaningful in the absence of any other contradicting information. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 30 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - While I believe that DGG has a point, the other points brought up are more persuasive. I have spent the last 10 minutes trying various searches ... I even tried finding an obituary (which should be found in 1999). Nothing. I think lacking WP:V, this article should go until something turns up. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per User:DGG below. Some of the searches turn up portions of papers, as well as a document showing he was chair of academic conference. I tried "De Mayne" and "De Maine" .... third one would have been the charm. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As noted, source do not appear to exist. Due dilligence has been done using all reasonably availible resources to find references, and none have been found. As has been noted on various places, it is the responsibility of those voting keep to provide sources. Those voting delete have looked everywhere they could, which is above and beyond the call of duty, and STILL can't find them. People who have voted delete can't provide non-references that do not exist to back up their arguements. If sources can't be found, they can't be found. I see no evidence from the article that the sources are likely to exist in print form, and unless someone somewhere provides those sources, Wikipedia should not have an unreferencable article on this person. If print sources are produced after the article has been deleted, then the article can be recreated, or restored via WP:DRV. However, we can't assume references exist if no one can find them. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what is found there does seem to be sufficient to show importance in the field. DGG (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Struck through prior vote. After picking through the google search provided by Shawis under the new spellings, reliable sources clearly exist. The article should probably be moved to the name "Paul de Maine" or "Paul A.D. de Maine" as those appear to be how he spells his name. The misspelling of the current article is what appears to have led to the confusion over the lack of sources. Good work Shawis! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep: absence from google scholar et al. would not be evidence of absence of notability for somebody working in the 1960 and 70s; but his presence there (e.g. this, or this) clearly shows *some* notability - although his importance in the field seems to be somewhat over-egged in the article as it now stands. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. I'm still not convinced. It is difficult to find much impact from his work, and the article itself doesn't demonstrate any. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 4 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 eradicated as obvious hoax, a bored-one-day joke article that doesn't have a chance. Kinu t/c 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hoover Silicon Eradication System[edit]

    Hoover Silicon Eradication System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The article is a hoax. It fails to meet WP:V. It cites no reliable sources. Neparis (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete - WP:DUCK; the West Virginia Board of Medicine is a licensing group, and would have no purpose purchasing such a device, no matter its health benefits. This article is the only thing that comes up on different searches. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Obvious hoax - there's no sensible purpose in removing "silicon particles" (sand) from the water flowing across a dam, and even less potential purpose in a medical licensing group purchasing the device to "use the vast amount of silicon for medicinal purposes". One of the images is actually of a system in Switzerland, to boot. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as clear hoax per everyone above, there's not much else I can say. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 10:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I work extensively with royalty related articles and am interested in topics like this personally, but I do not believe it is encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository and even the ancestry of some people on here is shaky at best, but the descendants of individual people is really pushing it. My suggestion would be to have a section on each monarch's page about their reigning descendants and let that be that. I don't think any real purpose is being served by showing the unions between these two monarchss' descendants. For the most part, it just happened. Wikipedia, lately, in the royalty related articles, has become cluttered with topics like this (some less encyclopedic). While the article is sourced, most genealogies can be, but again, we are not a genealogical repository. I suggest delete and then send to the user space or make a subpage of WP:ROYALTY. Charles 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete While there is some good information in this article; there is no reason for this article to exist per se. Since Victoria and Christian IX never actually did the horizontal hokey-pokey (as far as I know), there are no decendents of them both in any real sense. There a people who have decendend from Victoria and from Christian IX, but to have an article like this implies something entirely different than the coincidence of several people sharing two ancestors. This article is a clear novel synthesis as defined by WP:OR. This is in the sense that while it is clear that all of these people are in fact descended from Victoria and from Christian IX, there is no reason for these two facts to be assembled into a single article. This information has no reason to be conjoined in a single article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the subject of the article seems a little arbitrary, why not any two other random monarchs? A lot of work has been done on it, so maybe worth Userfying if anybody wants it. I should point out that the previous AfD is less than two weeks old, and ended as a unanimous keep, which strikes me as a little odd. Lankiveil (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep, the subject of this article is in fact not arbitrary nor does it violate WP:OR. From Theo Aronson's A Family of Kings:
      • "Indeed, between them, Queen Victoria and King Christian IX supplied Europe with the majority of its reigning sovereigns. If Queen Victoria was the Grand-mother of Europe, then King Christian IX was certainly its Grandfather, or, as he was known in his day, its Father-in-law." Page 6.
      • "Most present-day European monarchs are descended from either Queen Victoria or Kign Christian IX (and, in many cases, from both)" Page 228.
      • "That Queen Victoria's descendants should have filled the thrones of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe is understandable; but that the family of the poor, unambitious and unimportant King of Denmark should have done the same is remarkable." Page 228.
    • I suppose the article could be split, but it seems to large to include in the articles on Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. And it would result in much repetition since of their 9 monarch grandchildren, only 3 are descended from just one and did not marry a descendant of the other.
    • The article was not meant to be an exhaustive list of intermarriages between the descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX, which it by no means is. Instead, it was meant to show the relationships between modern monarchies as presented in the referenced books and alluded to in several other wikipedia articles. The article presents this as unions between the descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX simply for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.233.137 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's a legitimate encyclopedic topic, but should be renamed by adding the word "Royal" to the beginning -- obviously we shouldn't be interested in nonroyal descendants. It seems to be noteworthy that at the beginning of World War I, so many European royal houses were related to each other to such an extent. This article lays out the details. We want articles on notable, serious subjects that help our readers gain knowledge. This does that. Nor does the article have to be split, because the point of each of the two articles would be the same. This isn't geneology, this is history. Noroton (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. My instictive reaction was, Do we really need this? However, I read the article, peeked at the cites, and read the above discussion. It seems notable to me, and far from OR. Perhaps rename per Noroton. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I nominated this for deletion less than a month ago, and am gladly arguing for its deletion once again. As I said then, this is a violation of WP:IINFO, in that the "article" is merely an overwhelming series of royals, whose only tenuous link is one of two common ancestors, and of WP:SYN, because no third-party references have been provided to establish the notability of the multitude of descendants had by Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. I stand by that assertion. Biruitorul (talk) 00:12, 8 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. Secret account 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Valerie velazquez[edit]

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

    Not notable per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC; IMO it should have been speedied to begin with --Mhking (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7 per above, total failure of WP:MUSIC, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep minimally notable for a wide variety of small local things (minor music, minor appearances, minor theatre) though the article is in atrocious shape. JJL (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as per CSD A7. Non-notable musical artist. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I can't find anything to verify the claims made in the article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a tiny bit of this, a tiny bit of that, but at the end of the day - unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Can't find sources for this. --Sharkface217 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete - this myspace profile [47]has some claims which perhaps could make her notable, but I cannot find any reliable secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJF (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and start over. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice to possible recreation. There are a few claims made in the article: she landed the leading role in Annie, for example, but was this in a movie blockbuster, or for an elementary school play? — BillC talk 00:09, 4 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 redirect. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick summary of the issue: a person who competed in a long ago olympics (1912), didn't finish, no significant coverage can be presently found with ease (as yet) although reliable sources do evidence he existed and competed and dropped out from injury.

    A quick review of the policy based points suggests the following:

    1. Wikipedia considers the historic notability of a person. (WP:NOT) Also there is hinting in the policy wording to the effect that a notable topic does not have its notability affected by passage of time.
    2. As all we know of him is that he competed in the 1912 games, the question is, whether being in an Olympic team itself enough to make someone notable, generally. The answer (per commonsense and WP:BIO) would seem to be, "yes".
    3. That he dropped out, or little else is known presently, would not seem to change that. (Also it seems hard to conceive that additional to the above comment and evidence verifying it, that some other sources do not exist, even if at present we have not found them. Would no newspaper have covered the team or his dropout; no book have been written on the games? This is speculative but is also encouraging in concept. However the main point is as stated above)
    4. Notability is also touched on in other ways. Per WP:N the aim of notability is to try and identify whether the wider world took note of him in some non trivial way, and clearly whatever happeend at the games, being a member of the team suggests that indeed, there was clear discrimination; he was not merely a "random athlete" and passes the hurdle of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection". These are suggestive of notability.
    5. However at present all that is known of him is "he competed in a major event and dropped out". We have no evidence he was notable for anything else, or for his sports career or other aspects of his life generally. This seems to be classic WP:BLP1E, in which we "cover the event, not the person". Hence redirect.
    6. (And we also at present can't write much else about him or a neutral article on him, as we do in a pactical sense, lack actual biographical information of substance.)

    James Barker (athlete)[edit]

    James Barker (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested CSD, for notability concerns. There are no reliable, third-party sources, and the only reason for its initial undeletion was a dubious precedent that any Olympic athlete deserves an article. Ergo, this is somewhat of a deletion review in the form of an AFD, for reasons expressed at the Policy village pump. (I strongly advocate deletion). Keilanatalk(recall) 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not dubious at all, it's the core tenet of wikipedia's notability rules. The Olympics is the highest level of track and field, this man was in the Olympics of 1912, he's notable. There are no grounds for deletion at all. I note that you speedily deleted this article twice and are now apparently seeking to change a long established policy to justify acts which other admins and editors seem to disagree with. Nick mallory (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete It does need some sources. I assume they exist, ancient newspapers and so on, but I couldn't find any. --W.marsh 03:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you assume sources exist, then why weak delete? I'm not hopeful that someone will find the sources, but that's not the issue here. If the sources exist, then this article is warranted. –Pomte 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They probably exist... but I'm not sure until we actually find them. Maybe no newspapers happened to write about this guy. We can always undelete if someone finds better sources. --W.marsh 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any sources found are very likely to be trivial. The general notability requirement states that a subject must have substantial coverage. Until there is more than just a passing mention of his participation, the article shouldn't be kept. Reywas92Talk 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merge/redirect makes more sense, given the lack of non-directory style information about this guy, and the incomplete nature of the information we do have (how did he qualify? Where was he born? when did he die? etc.) The redirect can always be undone when someone goes on a microfilm binge and finds sources, if they really do exist. If nothing else there must have been an obituary. --W.marsh 15:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The current source from www.olympics.org (a very reliable source) backs up the notability claim of competing in the 1912 Olympics. Olympians more than qualify under WP:BIO in that they are competing at the highest level in an amateur sport. Being an Olympian, even if you don't medal, is a very exclusive classification that belongs to a finite group of athletes. Considering that the Olympics in question are from 1912, there is a good chance that the addition sources needed to expand the article are probably not available online but in libraries and archives from that time period. (Look at the number of online sources for the 1912 Summer Olympics page itself). We should not let a bias towards relying on online sources cause us to delete an article that is clearly on a notable subject. AgneCheese/Wine 03:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think the crux of the issue is with WP:BIO, which clearly allows an article about an Olympic athlete. The "highest level" clause has established the notability of countless professional baseball, football, basketball players in numbers that are probably greater in numbers than our coverage on Olympic athletes. In just a small sampling I counted over 800 entries in Category:Major league players from California, almost 300 entries in Category:New York Knicks players, over a 1000 in Category:American football quarterbacks and an incredible 5200 plus entries in Category:English footballers. In contrast the Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain has a little more than 400 entries. Not everyone of these Olympian won a medal, just as I'm sure that not everyone in any of the other "Major league" categories won a major award, was part of an All-star or Championship team. But the one thing that these Olympians have in common with these other "major league" athletes is that they are one of the very few individuals (out of the billions in the world) that have competed at the highest level in a very notable endeavor. Again, this is such a small and finite group of people. If you have a philosophical issue about the threshold for notability (and it is reasonable to have those concerns), then that should be brought up at the WP:BIO page. But as it stands now, with the precedent of thousands of articles on "major league" athletes, being an Olympian is notable. AgneCheese/Wine 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I would caution against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is typically not a valid arguement for keeping or deleting an article. I am a huge fan of American baseball, and I will be the first to admit: there are ball players who have articles that simply don't deserve them. I agree with you on that issue. However, just because those articles exist in the first place, does not give proper grounds for this one to exist. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Agne, the Olympics.com source is reliable, but does it really do anything? It is an extremely trivial source saying that the person existed, participated, and has a birthdate. A passing mention in a list or nearly empty bio page is not a useful source. Reywas92Talk 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete - There is no such precedent that any Olympic athlete deserves an article. If there are multiple third party sources, then yes. Otherwise, no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the notability page disagrees with you. I (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, right above that, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". By that it means the existance of sources (or lack thereof) can overrule the subjective criteria. --W.marsh 03:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's what I would think, but people seem to disregard that, and treat these cases as automatic notability. See the comment immediately below me (3:36) I (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sourced to the British Olympic Association, what more do you want? Nick mallory (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All that's sourced so far is directory-style information... name, year of birth, events. It's been prose-ified, but based on sources we know about now it really could never be expanded beyond directory-style information, which runs afoul of WP:NOT. --W.marsh 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous, you're now on your third rationale for deletion in half an hour, the first two having been clearly refuted. This is in no way a 'directory' question. What next? How can you possibly know this article can't be expanded? A few minutes ago you couldn't find any trace of him despite him having a page at the BOA site confirming all the relevant details. Nick mallory (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to get rude... the only reason this article is even at AFD and not a redlink is because I demanded an AFD. None of my arguments have been refuted anyway. I asked for reliable, non-trivial sources and all that was found was a directory listing, which poses obvious problems. --W.marsh 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean online "google-searchable" sources? We have a reliable source that establishes notability. Considering the news and press coverage that have historically surrounded the Olympics, it is very likely that there are sources available to expand the article but they are just not available online. For something that has it notability established, we shouldn't delete articles because of the fact that it may require a trip to the library or a dig through old newspaper archives to find more sources. We should be wary about this bias for online sources. We are trying to craft an encyclopedia and sometimes we have to go beyond where a mouse click can bring us. AgneCheese/Wine 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, that tangent you went off on is based on a false assumption. As I thought I communicated above ("ancient newsapers"), I know the sources here, if they exist, are on microfilm... but that's if they exist. You want to assume they do, I'd like someone to actually find them first. There might be sources on all sorts of stuff. --W.marsh 03:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like someone to find them too. I still see no reason to delete an article that has it notability already established just because someone hasn't found them in the first 5 hours of the article's life. AgneCheese/Wine 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NOT#DIR doesn't apply here as it's meant to avoid articles on non-notable subjects; it doesn't prevent perma-stubs. This stub doesn't need to ever be expanded because there's a clear assertion of notability and no evidence that this article cannot theoretically expand. –Pomte 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about Bergvall, Erik (ed.) (1913). in Adams-Ray, Edward (trans.).: The Official Report of the Olympic Games of Stockholm 1912. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand as a source? I wasn't being rude either, but googling ' "James Baker" Olympics ' produces the BOA site as the first hit. Can I ask what search terms you used in your failed search earlier? If the British Olympic Association isn't a good enough source for a British Olympian then I still don't know what is. Nick mallory (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did two news story archive searches, which include a lot of papers from this era, but none seemed to mention Barker. Is the information in the source you mention more than what the BOA site has? --W.marsh 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source clearly establishes that he existed and someone who participates in the Olympics is clearly notable by Wikipedia's notability standard. If you want that standard changed then this isn't the place to argue about it. This issue has come up lots of times Lecomte, Christine Robinson, and Albert Baumann AfDs for example and the community consensus is clear. Nick mallory (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those AFDs were before the re-focusing of WP:N to be based around the existence of sources. The older criteria of WP:BIO are increasingly obsolete... for example we couldn't have an article on a living Olympian if there weren't any non-directory sources, due to WP:BLP. --W.marsh 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As has just been pointed out anyone who participated in the Olympic Games is by definition competing at the highest level of their sport and is therefore automatically notable by the long established Wikipedia standards regarding sportsmen. It's clear by policy and precedent that Barker is notable. The article is linked to the British Olympic Association site, which clearly records his name and participation.Nick mallory (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - He meets the WP:N requirement for amateur athletes, so he should be kept. matt91486 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and clean-up; there has to be more information on him somewhere. That should be included here. --Mhking (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep –Pomte 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, Olympian = notable. Corvus cornixtalk 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An article doesn't have to currently cite sources in order to be keepable; it only needs to be established that sources clearly exist. The Olympics, since their inception, have always generated significant reliable press, and thus athletes that compete in them will have copious sources about them. It is not that Olympics athletes are granted some "golden ticket" that makes them exempt from notability requirements, its that the sources clearly exist even if the article in its current state does not cite them. Each of the specifically cited WP:BIO claims of individual notability are not exemptions from the standard notability requirements, they are recognition that such categories of people will likely pass said requirements all the time. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest Delete - This article is not encyclopedic, period. An examination of Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres will show that this athlete's performance is that he did not even finish the 100 meter race. Searches could not turn up any other notable activity. Yes, he's a real person. This person is flat out not notable by any rationale definition of notability, and is within the spirit of WP:N to be deleted. W.marsh has established that simply being an Olympian does not connote notability per WP:N. If that is the sole wall of defense for this article, then I see this as a clear case to advocate WP:WIARM if that single notability issue is the sole pillar of this article's defense. While trying to maintain good faith, I am suspecting that WP:POINT may be at work somewhere ... I truly hope I am wrong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He competed at the highest level of his sport, which part of 'the spirit' of WP:N does that contravene again? Nick mallory (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the "undeleting" administrator, I'm not going to !vote, but I do feel it necessary to comment since I am involved. As it stands, per former consensus and per the way the "top of the field clause" is worded, then this should be kept. This argument is more than likely far beyond the scope of this individual article. If I could !vote outside that clause, however, I would say delete, because WP:N requires that third party, reliable sources provide significant coverage of the subject of the article. It is not up to the people who nominate the article for deletion to find these sources, outside of a good faith effort to make sure that there's not an obvious amount of them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is very clear that it is up to the people adding the material to the encyclopedia to provide sources that assert notability. Having said that, I can't !vote outside of the clause, and therefore will take this discussion to a more appropraite venue (the village pump per above). Cheers, CP 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres unless more is found about him. That article mentions him as not finishing. I assume he has finished 100 m races to qualify but if there is no known mention of a result or source coverage beyond one line then don't make an article. Olympic athletes in 1912 were usually much less notable and competitive than today. WP:BIO#Additional criteria says: "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. ... Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not expire. Saying an Olympian of 1912 is less notable than one of 1972 or today is ridiculous. How about we axe every baseballer before 1930? Nick mallory (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is we so far have no evidence that he was ever notable as in non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. We only have speculation about unknown sources. My point was that 1912 Olympic athletes got far less attention at the time than athletes today so many of them never had the same level of notability. The public and media simply cared far less and this guy didn't even finish the shortest event. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how legitimately one can claim that people of a certain period "cared less" because we happen to be blessed with more news coverage and media presence in this "information age". Politicians were certainly covered less in the early 20th century due to lack of television or internet news sources, but do you really think people "cared less" about their government officials? What about the comparison in news coverage between World War I and the Iraq War? AgneCheese/Wine 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that he actually competed? The record says that he did not finish, which could mean that he never even started the race. The sole evidence is an entry that he was in attendance. There is no record of qualification. For all we know, absent sources, he was a British citizen on the boat to Stockholm, and got added to the roster, and never started the race. By WP:N as applies to athletes, I would say that there is no evidence to support that this person ever competed at the highest level of amateur competition. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honesty, that doesn't matter. Achieving the feat of becoming an Olympian is an incredible accomplishment that so few people will ever do. Scott Baird holds the distinction of being the oldest Winter Olympian to win a medal and didn't even play. He was an alternate on the bronze medal curling team. Even though he never threw a rock in an actual Olympic game, he is still an Olympian. He still achieved, what so few others will ever do. The same with James Baker. He is one of infinitesimal amount of individuals in the world who ever became an Olympian. I'm surprise that there are people here who do not understand how significant of an accomplishment that is. AgneCheese/Wine 05:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I think it is highly paramount since some people here seem very intent to follow "the letter" of WP:N rather than to really consider the spirit of what notability entails. If you really feel an athlete who (at least) never even finished a race 85 + years ago is notable, then that's your opinion, and its no more or less valid than mine. However, the letter of WP:N states for athletes: Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports. I say: give me one shred of evidence that this man competed. So far not one ounce of evidence has been produced to confirm his competition. This is in violation of WP:V. The only evidence that we have is that he was in Stockholm in 1912, and was on the British team. By the letter of Wikipedia policy, this article should be deleted. In the spirit of Wikipedia policy, it should be deleted for, IMO, lacking rational notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 351 of this document suggests that he did participate in a heat, but did not place. Zagalejo^^^ 08:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, interestingly, I don't see him included in the List of Competitors (beginning on page 891; I'm using the original page numbers, BTW). Zagalejo^^^ 08:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Olympic athletes got a much smaller ratio of the public attention in 1912 than today. How many of the British population in 1912 would have any recollection of reading, seeing or hearing about a failed 100 m Olympic runner from games in another country? I guess not many. And this was long before the time of live television which has revolutionized sports coverage much more than coverage of politicians. If Wikipedia had existed in 1912 then I doubt editors would include this man unless there are great unknown sources. The Olympics is a huge event today but if todays interest is about todays athletes then I don't think it should automatically merit addition of an old failed participant with two lines of known information. And getting into the 1912 British team took far less effort than today. It doesn't have to be any kind of large personal achievement. I have heard many of the early Olympians were upper class people with time and money to spare. Amateur rules were very strict, most people had to work for a living, boat trips were long, and many had to pay for their own travel. Many of them probably viewed it more as an active vacation than a great sporting event. And as LonelyBeacon hints, often they were not carefully selected after qualification but were just willing and able to participate. Currently we don't know whether James Barker has ever run 100 meters in a time within seconds of the best at the time. One of the heats was won in 12.4s and another in 10.6s. Being 1.8s from the winner today would be a joke. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Verifiable and NPOV article on someone who competed at the highest level of amateur competition. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per previous precedent for Olympic athletes. I agree that the criteria for participation in 1912 was quite different from today's Olympic athletes, but where do you draw the line? The same criteria for notability must apply for all Olympic Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article as it stands is pretty worthless, but as I have demonstrated with my work on Norwegian athletes the article can be expanded with performance in national championships, personal best marks etc. It depends on the quality of the sources, though. Punkmorten (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - The fundamental problem is that Wikipedia has tens of thousands of these stub articles that do the reader very little good. We allow them because we hope that someday someone will come along and spend the enormous amount of effort to research old and/or obscure sources to find enough to expand the articles, effort that (in my opinion) would be far better spent improving articles that a lot of people actually do read. Worse, by fragmenting information like this, we keep it out of articles like Great Britain and Ireland at the 1912 Summer Olympics. How did the Great Britain and Ireland do in field and track in 1912 as opposed to 1908, or Olympic games in the 1920s? If information is consolidated, it's useful, and it can always be spun off when it gets too lengthy. If information is fragmented (as it is now), it's likely to stay fragmented - and virtually worthless - for a long, long time. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect. When looking through Category:Possibly living people I came across large numbers of stubs like this, and I looked at the categories for old Olympic athletes from the early 20th century by country and by particular olympics and almost all are stubs. I think that most of these should be merged and redirected unless people have multiple reliable sources about them. Wikipedia is not a directory, either.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect; I am an inclusionist on most issues but here I think we're plowing way past the boundaries of notability. I know what our policies say, but they only describe past consensus, and consensus can change. This article should be deleted because:
    1. Notability can expire - it is very difficult to make a counter argument to this. While this runs against our prior consensus on notability, what was only vaguely notable in 1912 - and in this case no one has even shown that - is likely not notable at all in 2008.
    2. This individual competed in a single heat of a single sporting event of a single Olympic games. I do not believe that competing in one major event in one's career should grant notability. An athlete should need need to compete in an event on a championship level, or set a major record, or be notable outside of the sport, or do something else that makes an impression on the public - that creates a rationale for notability. Otherwise you end up with articles on Silvio Diliberto and Phil Sanderson.
    3. "The Games grew to nearly 11,100 competitors from 202 countries at the 2004 Summer Olympics...at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin Italy, 2,633 athletes from 80 countries competed in 84 events." - From the Wikipedia article Olympic Games. Do you really believe that all 13,000 athletes from this past Olympiad's Games are notable. I believe that around half of them are not notable at all. Based solely on the information presented in the article, James Barker would have fallen into the not notable category because he never made it out of the preliminary round.
    Please evaluate my arguements on their merits and not on old consensus.--CastAStone//(talk) 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Participating at the Olympics does not make one notable. He was eliminated in the first round! CastAStone's argument is great. In 2004 there were 11,099 athletes at the Olympics. Every one of them is not notable just for participating there! Reywas92Talk 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - So far (I could be wrong here), we have two sources - one being from the U.K. Olympic Committee (reliable) and one the final report from the 1912 Olympics provided by Zagalejo (also reliable). I would argue that to meet notability, there needs to be sources independent of the athlete's participation in the games. In other words, there needs to be a newspaper article from an independent source. I would say that until such a source surfaces, the article has to go. Further, there are arguments for merge. I would say every bit of useful information is already found at Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres (his event, nation represented, and that he may or may not have actually run the race). A redirect would probably be good until such time sources can be established. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that those sources prove Verifiablility, not notability.--CastAStone//(talk) 17:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huge comment Many people have simply stated that he is notable because he competed at the highest level of competition. HOwever, a simple look at WP:BIO clearly shows that he would be notable because of this, but also says he must meet the general criteria of secondary sources. James Barker does not meet the general criteria of secondary sources. From WP:BIO:

    The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
    • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

    Barker's coverage is trivial and not substantial. It is true that the British Olympics website is both reliable and independent, but it is not substantial! That source simply includes Barker's birthdate and the fact that he participated in the 100m at the 1912 Olympics. Not to be rude, but if you think that is substantial enough to warrant his notability and that of other athletes, you need your head examined! The passing mention of thousands of athletes in lists and pages like this does not mean we need an article on the person! (After an edit conflict: Thank you LonelyBeacon!)Reywas92Talk 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – "redirect" is not a useful option for the disposition of this article. The Olympics WikiProject uses templates for formatting pages such as Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres (the only mainspace article that James Barker (athlete) links from). Specifically, Template:flagIOCathlete is used to render the flag before the athlete's name and the wikilink to Great Britain at the 1912 Summer Olympics after his name (using the IOC code "GBR"). Redirecting athlete's names to also point to the respective "Nation at the year Olympics" pages is a pretty useless action since the wikilink to that page is already there, adjacent to the athlete's name. If this article is deleted (and a new precedent is set for Olympic athlete articles), then the correct course of action would be to simply de-link athlete's names from results pages (like the 1912 100 metres page). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Redirect is a useful option - the absence of an appropriate article indicates a problem with the lack of a place to collect relevant information about the 1912 team, and/or the 1912 field and track atheletes of the 1912 British team. Was the team expected to do well? What competitions were used to determine who was on the team? Were notable athletes absent? Did athletes have to pay their own way? (I'm sure that other editors can come up with other interesting aspects of the team, and individuals on it.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Basic biographic information on an Olympic athlete is encyclopedic. Although there are numerous Redirect suggestions above, this is a poor idea for articles like these as a redirect loses valuable information. In this case, date of birth would be lost. Typically we might also lose date of death, places of birth and death, etc. There's no obvious place to Merge dates of birth and death for most articles like these, so they should remain. Quale (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article already is fully verifiable with reliable sources so does not fail any policies. The only question to my mind is the notability guideline. If this athlete was a modern athlete I have no doubt there would be plenty of sources online to easily meet any notability guideline, and if there was no more than what we have at the moment, then I would support merging to an article on, in this case, British athletes at the 1912 Olympics. However James Barker competed at a time well before the internet, and sources (such as newspaper coverage), are not going to be found online. I am sure if someone checks the back copies of national British newspapers at the time enough coverage to establish notability would be found. It is a reasonable presumption that Olympic athletes (and there were fewer of them in 1912) competing at the highest level of their sport will have enough coverage to justify an article. So keeping this article (which as I have said does not violate any policies) on the presumption that sources are available, unless someone can reasonably say they have made a genuine attempt offline to find sources and cannot find them? Davewild (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Is there a codicil in WP:V that says older articles need not be as verifiable because they are old? From what I am reading there are no exceptions to subjects needing to be verified in terms of notability. I don't remember seeing one, and don't really think older subjects deserve a pass. You state it is a "reasonable presumption" that there will be coverage. How can this be defended? You are applying modern standards t something that happened nearly a century ago. The Olympics themselves did not have the history and level of importance in 1912 than they have today. I refute that there should be an "assumption" that there exists references to establish notability. Should these references come to light, then the article can be recreated. I don't recall there being a policy that articles should be kept because "one day someone's bound to find something that will establish notability". I know that there is no set time that exists to improve an article, but I don't believe that applies to confirming notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It should be noted per Zagalejo, this person was apparently so notable that the 1912 Olympic committee report did not have him listed as a member of the U.K. Olympic Team. There is a record that he lined up to start the race, but he was left off the official roster of athletes in the official report. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond, as I stated he already meets WP:V - everything in the article is sourced to reliable secondary sources. If an article exists on olympians on which no reliable sources can be found during an AFD then deletion is probably necessary. My belief is that it is pointless to delete articles on very old olympians (that meet policies WP:V etc.) because we do not have the sources immediately available. The presumption in our existing practice (I think this is only the second time I have seen an olympian on AFD and that one was quickly kept) is that olympians will almost certainly be notable and deleting the article to force someone to have to completely restart in the future seems pointless to me. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - He meets WP:V in so far as we have confirmed that he was alive and in Stockholm. We have not confirmed that he has competed. The most tenuous clinging to notability is that he competed at the Olympics. This has absolutely not been verified in any way consistent with the spirit of WP:V. I would say that at this point WP:V has not been met. I might (just might) be more willing to vote against deletion, if there was some certainty that one day sources will be found, and that a deletion would make someone start the article over. As it is, the article is three sentences long. If sources are ever found (and I doubt that they will), the article can be restarted properly. Not much would be lost. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is meets notability in as so far as he is an Olympian, meaning that he had to had to have compete and qualified to be considered one of the best track athletes that Great Britain had to offer. Remember, there is far more that goes into being an Olympian than in just competing in the sport. Like I mentioned previously with the curler Scott Baird. He helped his team qualify for the Olympics and even though he didn't throw a single rock, much like Barker didn't even finish his race, Baird is still recognized as an Olympian. Heck, Baird is even recognized as medalists! Again, there is more to acheiving the very exclusive and difficult title of being an Olympian than we should be taking for granted. This is not like forming some garage band or webcomic. AgneCheese/Wine 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What are your reasons for believing that "he had to have competed and qualified to be considered one of the best track athletes that Great Britain had to offer"? Do you have any sources backing up this statement? _R_ (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I already stated, just because something is verifiable and sourced doesn't mean that the person is notable. If the trivial reference for this person is enough, then there shoudl be an article on me. There are a fair number of internet sources with a trivial reference of me. Everything is verifiable, but this unsubstantial source doesn't create notability. This Three-sentenced article has absolutely nothing unique other than the birthdate, and the only link to it is the 100m race article. Reywas92Talk 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is about someone 100 years ago (none of the British newspapers at the time are available online) who competed at the highest non-professional sports level, the olympic games, that is the difference. Just like we give the benefit of the doubt to any inhabited place which we can verify existence of, we should be able to do the same for James Barker. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're breaking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (I was responding to his comment above.) For one, it has always been argued that a place where many people live is notable. One of those people isn't necessarily notable. Two, places can be found on the map, and more information can usually be found eventually, rather than a single person 100 years ago. Three, don't think that I'm not going for West Dean, Wiltshire next. That should be merged to Wiltshire as there is zero unique information. Reywas92Talk 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like places can be found on the map olympic athletes can be found in the records of the events/teams. Basically my philosophy is that if it is reasonable the article can be expanded in the future and its not breaking policies let it be in cases where there is a strong assertion of importance. The oppoosite philosophy (probably what you believe?) is that if the article cannot immediately meet the main notability guideline it should be deleted/merged. This is the difference and I doubt we are going to persuade each other. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Comment I'd just like to mention again that Barker has never even met the notability requirements set months ago. WP:BIO clearly states that even if he competed at the highest level of amateur sports, the Olympics, there must be sources that are substantial. Barker's reference is clearly trivial. Really, this so-called precedent that that Olympic atheletes are notable must go. But then again, the precedent has always been plainly addressed in WP:BIO. If there is a problem with this (in the Additional criteria section), it should be taken there, but this article is not up the Wikipedia's notability standards. Reywas92Talk 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Olympic atheletes have competed at the highest level of amateur athletics.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Olympians are notable. Happy New Year! Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For heaven's sakes, you two! Have you read anything? There is more to Wikipedia notability than being an Olympian! Reywas92Talk 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the thread, just because I do not agree with your interpretation on things is no cause for you to lose civility. I stand by my keep opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I lost some civility, but the article clearly does not pass WP:BIO as the source is in no way substantial. Reywas92Talk 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; multiple independent sources and the article meets all content policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite. The independent sources can't be a trivial mention, which they are. Reywas92Talk 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The mentions are not trivial, they simply taken independently have low depth of coverage. More importantly, however, WP:BIO is not a content policy and even for pages that fail that guideline, deletion is a last resort only. No argument made for taking desperate measures in this case. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but you seem to have contradicted yourself. A mention having such low depth of coverage, only the birthdate and that he didn't even finish, is considered trivial. If deletion is a last resort, the article can be merged. Reywas92Talk 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. A trivial mention would, for instance, simply be the appearance of his name in a list with no other information at all. This is simply a small, but non-trivial, mention. A merge, if desired, can be discussed in the appropriate location on the article talk page. Nominating for deletion implies a belief that the content cannot usefully be merged. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge. If there are not enough sources to create a complete encyclopedic article, we shouldn't have the article. This is true of every subject. Either enough sources exist to make it more than a stub, or they do not. If enough sources don't exist, the article should go away. If sources are found at a later date, the article can always be recreated with those sufficient references. Wikipedia already has far too many "perma-stubs" based on ridiculous keep arguments completely disconnected from the goal of building complete encyclopedic articles. We don't need another. Vassyana (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well considering that there are currently reliable sources in the article to establish notability, on what basis are you making the assumption that more sources do not exist? Especially considered that many newspapers do not have their archives online. AgneCheese/Wine 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two primary sources (the Olympic association and the official Olympics report) are not sufficient to establish notability. Multiple independent references are required to establish notability. Additionally, it is indeed possible that sources may exist, but we do not have any indication of the existence of those sources currently. I said quite clearly in my rationale: "If sources are found at a later date, the article can always be recreated with those sufficient references." Regardless, notability has not been currently established and no evidence of sufficient extant sources has been put forward. Vassyana (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How are those sources not independent of the subject. Do you have evidence that James Barker or his family operate the site or wrote the report? And how vague and subjective do you want quantify "multiple"? 2, 4, 10? Once again, where is the omniscience for knowing how many available sources exist? We have established evidence that some sources exist, otherwise there would be none in the article. We also have established a time period that does require some degree of common sense to realize in what medium that most reliable sources would exist in-i.e. nothing that a "google search" would be considered infallible or conclusive for. AgneCheese/Wine 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In article about an Olympic athlete (especially where the only information is essentially their participation in the Olympics), their own Olympic association and the official Olympics report are most certainly not independent of the subject. I never claimed any kind of omniscience. What I said is that we do not currently have any indication sufficient sources, not that they will never be found. I will again point out to you that I explicitly stated: "If sources are found at a later date, the article can always be recreated with those sufficient references." Vassyana (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have a disagreement on the "independent" aspect. While I agree that the Olympic site on an article about the Olympics would not be an independent source, we do have a significant degree of separation in an article about an Olympian. Similar to the essay Wikipedia:Independent sources, I would count both sources as "disinterested views" since neither the British association or the Olympic report having anything to gain by falsely recording what actually happened or building Barker's acheivement up to anything more than what they are. It ultimately comes down to my differing views that these reliable sources should not be discounted and it would be needlessly wasteful to delete an article on an Olympian when such sources clearly establish their notability. It is a fair view that one can delete the hundreds of thousands of notable stubs in Wikipedia and just wait for someone to recreate it as more developed article, and I do have some leanings to that view myself, but that is far from current consensus in Wikipedia. As I've stated a couple times before, there are many valid philosophical reasons to oppose this article's existence or the application of pertinent guidelines. I do think those reasons should be more fully explored on pages like WP:BIO instead of being battled out on isolated AfDs. AgneCheese/Wine 04:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We shall have to agree to disagree. :) I'm posting a message on your talk page to avoid derailing this AfD with a side conversation. Vassyana (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. This should be merged into a list of similar people if kept at all. General notability considerations have to trump the desire to give due acolade to heros. --BozMo talk 16:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's an appropriate view on the purpose of articles on athletes. The guidelines for amateur athletes require competition at the highest levels. Can you really argue that the Olympics aren't that? Obviously information from 1912 will be more difficult to come by than information from 2002, but his participation in the Olympics meets that notability requirement as it is currently phrased. matt91486 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and Redirect is the best solution. Currently I see no point in keeping this article, because the sources are of trivial mention. All they do is prove that this guy exists and that's it, no other information. I see several people who is voting keep because it meets WP:BIO. In the current wording of the process, it does, but without the propoer sourcing,the guideline is moot. A merge and redirect is a better solution as the redirect can be removed once the sourcing is found Secret account 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read my earlier comments (in this edit). A redirect is useless. Redirect to what? The logical redirect target would be Great Britain and Ireland at the 1912 Summer Olympics, which is where discussion about the enitire GBR team of 1912 (medalists, results, etc.) is intended to be kept. However, because of the way we write Olympic results pages, the only place in which James Barker (athlete) is used (i.e. Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres), already has a wikilink to this article immediately after Barker's name. Turning his name into a wikilink to the same destination article is totally pointless. The other article in which Barker could be mentioned is in the results section of Great Britain and Ireland at the 1912 Summer Olympics itself (when we get around to doing that in the Olympics wikiproject), so that would just result in Barker's name rendered in bold. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The redirects become even more problematic when you have people who participated in multiple years. Neier (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I couldn't finish my comment though, as my computer battery died on me, and I had to leave soon after to a party. Anyways, to finish my comment, and to add a new one after your replies, sourcing from this year, while harder to get, isn't impossible to find. Several British newspapers has archives from that year, and sourcing is poosible. The issue is that I checked google.uk for the proper sourcing (the regular google normally gives american newspapers) and I couldn't find anything useful. I also checked google books, and google scholar, and again nothing. As for the redirect issue, I recommend to be redirected to the Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres article, and let you guys decide where is the best place to redirect. Without proper sourcing, an article can't exist. Anyways there is no evidence that he participated in multiple years. Secret account 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the pure participation in Olympic Games really the "highest level of competition"? Instead the highest level might be the participation in the final run. James Barker (athlete) is protocolled as "DNF" in the first heat (according to the linked source which seems to be reliable compared with other better known facts). So I am in doubt about his notability. -- Hunding (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (visitor from dewiki)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. The fact that he competed at the Olympic games for Great Britain implies that he was clearly one of the top athletes in the UK. This is clearly enough for him to be notable enough for Wikipidia, and attempts to deny this are likely to suffer from recentism. However, as it stands, the article concentrates on one, relatively minor, aspect of career - his failure to finish the 100m at the Olympics due to injury. I can see a fuller article on James Barker concentrating on his athletics career outside the Olympics. Bluap (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, nearly 14,000 athletes competed in the Olympics this past Olympiad. That number alone should clearly prove that merely competing in the games is not in and of itself notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 13:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That means that currently an olympic athlete has achieved something that only 0.000215% of the population has achieved. (If I didn't botch my math). I read those statistics differently.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last year, I became the 17th coach in my state to lead my team to a particular state title, which constitutes an event far rarer than being an Olymipc athelete (or even rarer than many Olympic champions!). That establishes zero notability for me. Simply being a rare event does not necessarily constitute notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just a guess, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I would venture that whatever sport that your team won (and congats BTW) that there is at least a college level, professional level and maybe an Olympic level above it? I think the point that Cube lurker is try to make is that you can't get much more rarer than being an Olympian and still be competing on the highest level of competition you could be. AgneCheese/Wine 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On it's own of certainly not, but the number of olympic athletes is not so proportionally large as to clearly prove that merely competing in the games is not in and of itself notable. (In my opinion)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluap, I know I've mentioned this several times, and some people keep bringing this up: there is no evidence this man competed in the Olympics. He was on the team, and he was there, but there is no record of him actually competing. You are assuming he got injured. The record says "DNF". For all we know, he may have not even started the race. Also, you are assuming that he was a top athlete. Given how the Olympic teams were chosen in the distant past, that is not a conclusion that can be held with great certainty. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says that he did not finish the race due to injury. Bluap (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not supported by one of the references. The only thing we are sure of is that he did not finish. There is no evidence for why he did not finish. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In a reply to CastAStone's comment, the UK can currently send a maximum of 3 contestants in the 100m race. I'm not sure how big this limit was in the past, but to be selected, James Barker must have been one of the top sprinters in the UK, and would therefore have competed at the top level in the country. And it's not as if that the UK is a small country, where there is little competition for places. Bluap (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If there are three people from a country in a given event every four years seen as good enough to represent them in the Olympics, that seems completely legitimate to me. The proliferation of more Olympians now doesn't make them any less notable, it just means there are more countries now, and those countries have more athletic resources than in 1912. It doesn't make its participants more or less notable than those who participated then. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Reaching the Olympics is a major achievement on the world scale. The fact that it has been noted upon in multiple independent reliable sources demonstrates this achievement is notable. 1 != 2 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No significant sources about Barker beyond merely noting his appearance. He can be in a list or an article about the event. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What does the "Wudarski" document say? (The last new ref added to the article.) I'm having trouble viewing it. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no clue, when I tried to view it, my computer starting to freeze. Secret account 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a PDF of (I think in Swedish) the results of the 1912 games. The only new thing this adds is that it has separate entries for athletes who DNS (did not start?) and DNF (did not finish). Barker's sole entry lists him as DNF. It still does not indicate if he actually ran the race, or if he was injured. It just means he was at the starting line when called to report. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's Polish, and at least he used very reliable sources. Directory -- Hunding (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, Polish. The listing for heat 15 in the 100 m contains the line: "BARKER James J. GBR DNF". Apart from his date of birth and a possibly unsourced claim that he was injured, no known source gives more information than this, and all known sources are directory-like per Wikipedia:BIO#fn 5, listing him among all other participants in athletics, or from Great Britain. Given that this is 1912 and far from the home country in a time of boat travel and low Olympic significance, I still consider it possible that he was pulled in from the street or spectators to fill an open British slot (did they bring qualified substitutes?), and couldn't handle 100 m. Surely he may be notable but since when do we keep articles on people who may be notable when nobody in a high-awareness AfD can demonstrate it? And what if somebody finds a complete Olympic history in suitable format and makes a program to autogenerate 100000+ stubs of this quality? Do we really want that because "all Olympians are notable" as many keepers say. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Olympians are notable. Lawrence Cohen 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no significant sources. _R_ (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found a trivial mention from his club, so it appears he was at least a trained athlete. "'Lost' Great Britain Internationals" [48] (apparently posted 1 Oct 2004 [49]) asks for information about a number of people and includes the line: "James J Barker Polytechnic H (also Ilford AC) b 6.11.1892 Ilkeston,d ??", based on the work "Who's Who of UK & GB International Athletes 1896-1939". If this is all a researcher at his own club can find then I'm not sure whether the link increases or decreases estimated notability, but I still say redirect to the only other place he is currently mentioned: Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres. By the way, I think James Barker should list him no matter what happens, since he will remain mentioned in at least one article. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remain puzzled why "redirect" is continually offered as a resolution for this AfD. How is it helpful to redirect his name back on to the one article in which it is linked from? If we did that to all the athletes in that 100 metre race who didn't have their own articles, we would have a mass of bold text names instead of a mass of redlinks. How is bold better? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A redirect keeps the article history available to everybody if they find new information (not much to keep in this case though), the redirect can be linked at James Barker, it can go right to the section Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres#Heats, redirects used to show up in searches (they don't currently), there might later be mentions of him elsewhere. Redirect or delete is a small difference to me for this AfD, but if there is a possible target then I often prefer redirect over delete in AfD's. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 4 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. Pigman☿ 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trebava Osiječani[edit]

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

    horribly biased, hasn't been changed since beginning of november, has no real information. google brings up 43 total pages, 9 of them english, and not a one of the english being notable. Sudoku424 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no evidence of notability, no sources, nonsensical. JJL (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Hoax. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Looks like a hoax. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax, possibly G1 nonsense speedy delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not a hoax - a vandalized substub on a team that genuinely plays in the second division of the Republic of Srpska (that is, the Serbian bit of Bosnia-Hercegovina). My guess is that that doesn't amount to notability, but since I don't follow the football at all, I can't have a firm opinion about the Srpska second division. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:38, 2 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. --Oxymoron83 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Melissa Giorgio[edit]

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

    Creator removed a CSD I tagged it for (for A7), and then added some external links. I just wanted to get an outside view, but I think it should be speedied J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No notability asserted. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - according to the article, she has played in two bands that have articles: Creve Coeur and Slow Motion Crash. This seems to be an establishment of notability. I agree that there is a lack of reference, but that might be fixable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Creve Coeur is a disambig page for two towns, and doesn't mention the band. Avruchtalk 00:29, 2 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 keep. Rigadoun (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Women's Edge[edit]

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

    Deletion nomination This is the second nomination. The prior nomination was closed because not enough comments were made to reach a consensus. I am starting a second nomination in hopes of having a more robust discussion. My prior concerns, quoted from the first AFD, "The group may do noble work, however in order to merit an article at Wikipedia, the article about the group needs to provide evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG guidelines. This only only cites the organizations own website, which is not an independent reliable source. If independent sources can be provided, that would help, but as it stands now, this group seems to fail notability guidelines." still hold as of today. No edits have been made to this article since the last AFD was opened. Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Just because something doesn't get many google hits doesn't mean it doesn't merit an article. The organization has won the Mildred Robbins Leet Award for the Advancement of Women, and was named one of 25 Best Small Companies by Working Mother magazine. This article survived a AfD session less than two months ago, with three people wishing to keep the article and only the nominator wishing to delete it. This AfD is nominated again by the same nominator as before. Why the persistence? "Women's Edge Coalition" -wikipedia retrieves 15,400 on google. So it's not the Nelson Mandela Institution, but it isn't poppycock either. This article itself is a stub, and needs work, but that is no reason for deletion. The article simply needs some work. Kingturtle (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps when I said , and I quote for a third time, "If independent sources can be provided, that would help" and "The group may do noble work" that would cause you to assume that I had some sort of ulterior motive? Maybe the desire to find reliable sources and improve this article to a keepable state is something you do NOT wish to do, but as far as I am concerned, that would be the BEST thing to happen to this article. The problem is, no one has yet cited a single reliable source. The two people below have indicated that they may exist, which is hopeful. If someone could maybe provide 2-3 links to reliable sources, I would withdraw this nomination instantly. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did an edit with some references. If I have time this week I can add more. Maybe you can help out my adding more. Kingturtle (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep & Rename? - my search seems to show that this organization may have changed its name to Womens Thrive Worldwide. They have a page with links to reputable independent news organizations which cover their activities. Someone with a greater knowledge of womens international organizations may be able to shed more light on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep --- scant but sufficient independent reliable sources. --- tqbf 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron: here's what appears to be the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (but from a long time ago). Here's the group's own press room, including radio interviews on ABC, quotes in Reuters stories, op-eds and published letters-to-editor in a myriad of small newspapers, and a bunch of hits in tiny magazines. I agree, these are scant sources, especially for a purportedly established NPO (I have no opinion about this organization). But they're there, and they're sufficient to win an AfD debate over notability. --- tqbf 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw Nomination Thanks for finding that information. It is clear that this organization has the independent reliable coverage to be considered notable. I no longer feel the article merits deletion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:56, 3 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. Pigman☿ 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shri Shringirishi Maharaj[edit]

    Shri Shringirishi Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, unsourced trivia per opinion here [50]. No sources. No google hits. Strong possibility of original research. Mbisanz (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no evidence of notability; perhaps some WP:RS could change this. JJL (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Does this article even cover the subject that it purports to cover? I could only find the name mentioned once at the bottom. Ghits onlythis article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Shringi Rishi (an alternative name for the character) - although, it must be said, that article isn't significantly better than this one; at least we have _some_ references here. Tevildo (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Inferior duplicate of Shringi Rishi, which has no references either, as the source material for both is almost certainly apocryphal. The sum total encyclopedic content of the two articles, pending verification, could be compressed into a one line addition to Brahmin on the claimed origins of a particular subclass of Brahmins. rudra (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I just added that one line to Brahmin with a {{fact}} tag. rudra (talk) 06:23, 1 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. Addhoc (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fausto Lucio[edit]

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

    The entry makes no claim to his notability or that he has played in a fully professional league Peanut4 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right it does but I can only find through Google he played for Benfica B, and was released at the end of last season. Peanut4 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - this would mean he played at level 3 in Portugal. Is this enough? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Given that and the fact that he's playing in the upper divisions of English football, I think there's enough to keep him. matt91486 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no appearances in a fully professional league. Recreate if he plays for Bradford's first team ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:BIO as he does not appear to have played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems like he has never played professionally, can't find his entry on playerhistory, fails WP:BIO BanRay 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom. No assertion that appearances were made for Benfica, and currently no appearances for Bradford City. robwingfield «T•C» 18:17, 1 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 Speedy delete by User:East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Ron Paul bashers[edit]

    List of Ron Paul bashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    POV fork off Ron Paul campaign article; takes "criticism" section and relabels them "bashers", including WP:OR "political leanings". --- tqbf 02:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn; speedily deleted just after nomination --- tqbf 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following the addition of further references. A subsequent merge to Scribble may or may not be appropriate. Neıl ☎ 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alphabet Synthesis Machine[edit]

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

    procedural nomination—Version brought to AFD: This was previously considered at AfD with an outcome that teetered on 'no consensus'. The PROD nominater stated simply "Nonnotable", with which I tend to agree. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Searching for it turns up a fair amount of it, the PBS link added, with a few others, may be enough to establish notability, although the content of what I can find is pretty much gibberish to myself (as such, I'm not going to try and edit the article lest I make it a complete mess). Aeternitas827 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (see this version for my additions) I did a good-faith examination of the web in search of items and have populated a new 'references' section and the 'external links' section. I would not consider the PBS link to be an independent source because PBS and Art21 commissioned the work, which means they are involved and there is a potential conflict of interest. The only reliable source other than that which I could find (though there are LOTS of blog entries - everybody seems to feel the thing is way cool) is an interview with the primary artist in a magazine published online by the Centre international d'art contemporain de Montréal. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep THis article has good external links, and a decent amount of context. Article should be kept. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, the source material looks sufficient.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-notable piece of art, interesting only insofar as it took the form of a computer program producing doodles that it stored in TrueType font format. For the internet phenomenon that it is, one would expect a lot more of reference links before considering keeping this article. It has not generated any media attention and is not likely to do so anymore, because its site is down and the Alphabet Synthesis Machine is no longer operational. Freederick (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found an article here describing the art form that the ASM is producing. Perhaps this article could be merged there? Freederick (talk) 14:24, 7 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. Pigman☿ 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2006-07 United Kingdom network television schedule[edit]

    2006-07 United Kingdom network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    As per Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 8#Potential legal issue with UK Radio station schedules within articles, schedules are copyright and publishing a schedule without paying a royalty is a criminal offence. See the above link. AxG @ ►talk 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a television schedule anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. There is no such thing as a "2006-07 TV Season in the UK" anyway; UK schedules are broken down into autumn/winter/spring/summer schedules. Brad (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Copyright arguments should be used at the appropriate forum, we're not copyright experts here, and our opinions on it don't matter -- the opinions of Wikipedia's lawyers matter when it comes to unsettled copyright questions, and that's as it should be. Noroton (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Close - redirect any enquiries to Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, especially if that page could be classed as a historical schedule, as there is no information on whether historical schedules have the same copyright protection granted by UK law (and I am sure, this copyright will apply to the Wikipedia servers in Florida). Current schedules should be treated per instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions citing http://www.bds.tv/ as the source URL, as Broadcasting Dataservices holds copyright on all schedule data for BBC, ITV and Channel 4 schedules as granted by Schedule 17 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. --tgheretford (talk) 15:22, 1 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.   jj137 ♠ 01:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Lester[edit]

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

    Less notable than John Smeaton (baggage handler). WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E apply heavily here. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See precedents at deleted articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Bell and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Richardson.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is appropriate for Wikinews but not Wikipedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Agree with Nom -- Delete it. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Legend (rapper)[edit]

    The result was speedy delete - A7. --Michael Greiner 02:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Asserts notability but probably should be a standard A7. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete NN rapper. This article appears to be a vanity article and I feel a strong urge to speedy it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete A7, musician with no notability asserted, possible COI given the author's name. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong and Speedy delete The Nom is correct in the reason given. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete As per the above reasons, the article should be deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete self promotion and fails WP:MUSIC. Also Common fact that aside from garage-hardcore bands, most self promotion music articles come from "fresh rappers". A bit from this article: "Legend feels he is the first rapper to stick strictly to this genre--creating a brand of rap that is similar to the sounds of an R&B singer, only in lyrical fashion instead of musical notes." T-Pain anyone? or PM Dawn? I'm not fan of rap at all, but I know as a fact that zillions of popular rappers have done this. Doc Strange (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete, make it a speedy delete: A7 if possible. Clear WP:COI issues, no evidence WP:MUSIC is met, nothing (i.e., the "upcoming album") can be corroborated in any way. --Kinu t/c 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kudzu Wish[edit]

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

    Non-notable band. My db-band tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 18:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • May be sufficiently notable for a Keep. They've released an album in their own right as well as a split album with Disband. Their record label bio states that they have played 313 shows and have had 10 tours of North America. If that could be verified by an independent source, they could pass WP:MUSIC. Borderline at the moment, but maybe other editors could swing it towards a keep.--Michig (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a fair amount of coverage of their live shows/touring, e.g. [51][52][53] --Michig (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't this: KUDZU WISH "REVERSE HURRICANE" --- # 10 CMJ ADD / # 137 CMJ TOP 200
    Meet the 2nd criteria for notability?: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart."
    (Italics are mine). 65sense (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I'm not certain that's a music chart in the sense intended. That looks to me to be a list of the songs added to various radio stations' playing rotations. Admittedly, there probably is a fairly close correlation between the two...Xymmax (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment OK. So, let's assume that the #10 CMJ ADD doesn't meet the criteria. Surely then, the fact that the band charted at #137 on the CMJ TOP 200 charts does meet the criteria (any national music chart). Not only that, the band toured both nationally and internationally (assuming you agree with me that Canada is a sovereign nation). On top of that, the band is also on a label that has released material by artists that have been mentioned/had their album reviewed in Rolling Stone, Spin, NME and more. I know I'm a newbie and all, and if the article needs editing then by all means give me some constructive criticism, but i'm starting to feel a little picked on here. 65sense (talk) 19:43, 27 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep appears to have been subject of non-trivial coverage in published sources which are reliable for the purpose of music criticism. <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This does provide a good amount of information. Article should be kept. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Note, I commented, but did not vote above. In my above comment I asked about the charts. The article's author is correct that the second chart listed is a true album chart, and I therefore believe the band has met WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NewsIsFree[edit]

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

    Dead website, no notability, no attribution, not marked as being a stub EvanCarroll (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reasons for deletoion:

    • Article has no attribution, internal or otherwise.
    • Article has no notability, stated or implicit.
    • No sections or adherence to wikipedia MoS

    Newsfree.com is a newsfeed directory and search engine started in 1999 by Mike Krus...

    — Newsfree article

    Simply not true, Newsfree.com is FindLinks, a yellow page spammer. Newsisfree.com exists, but at the very best that only says this spam has been sitting on wikipedia for over 3years, and hasn't even benefited the spammer. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The website address looks like it accidentally got mangled in a cleanup by User:Tony Sidaway. I have now corrected it to indicate [www.newsisfree.com] rather than www.newsfree.com. I am not as certain as you are that this article is spam, perhaps you could further illuminate your theory? --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, doesn't belong here. WP:NOT we don't index the web, or care about every site. The site isn't special, the people that created it are nobodies. The article doesn't even make sense, a leading source of highly-targeted international information, moreover it is total WP:BULLSHIT for a website to syndicate in JavaScript. The fact that the website uses XML, or HTML. is rather stupid, as all websites use some variant of HTML. (probably XHTML which is XML/HTML). So the article fails technical merits, has peacock words like high demand, and fails social merits. And as you've stated, from June 2005, to December 2007, the article's LEAD sentence was factually incorrect ie, no one maintains this article. For a web company neither being historic, nor notable I see no reason for its inclusion. EvanCarroll (talk) 22:29, 25 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The nom is correct. The Website is non-existent so the company is no-more, and the article should be as well. The company might have been switched to findlinks.com. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nomination. --Mhking (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was redirect to List of Sex and the City episodes. Neıl ☎ 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ex and the City[edit]

    Ex and the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. Simply gives the episode plot. Has been tagged for notability issues for over a month and for clean up for two months without any attempt to address the issues. Merge unneeded as list of already provides an episode summary along with director and writer. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 25 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." -- Masterzora (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to LoE until notability is established. – sgeureka t•c 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per Masterzora. Hit show: I'm sure there's something out there to confirm or deny. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 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 keep. Nom changed mind, WP:V sources added, copyvio apparently taken care of. Pigman☿ 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kynamatrix[edit]

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

    This article makes no attempt to follow Wikipedia's conventions for formatting, linking, organization of topics, etc., and may have been put here only for the purpose of advertising. Also, this copyright notice:

    © Copyright 2007 Collegiate Presswire, Inc. and LifeSize Communications

    appears at the bottom of the article; that is certainly inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly the article has changed. In its present form, I no longer find any reason to delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No assertion of notability. Academics get up to all sorts of non-notable stuff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Verifiable by reliable sources. This is a refreshing entry and after checking the references, this is a notable achievement, the first of its kind. RareEntity (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete damn, did someone copyright this page or something? Anywho, it's a copyvio nonetheless. Either spam an overzealous information paster. I also think the person above me is either the person who created the page or a sockpuppet Doc Strange (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The most recent edits have transformed this article from something that clearly should not be here to something that I would not have nominated for deletion. I'm going to seek the advice of a person who may have some relevant expertise. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All that was objectionable in the article is no longer there. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:53, 1 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. Kurykh 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    HotBasic[edit]

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

    Version brought to AfD: This article is a reincarnation (not a recreation) of an article deleted via AFD in May 2006. After some sleuthing on the internet, I could turn up nothing but blog-type content referring to the software. It is one of at least 80 different BASIC compilers (according to this page) and though it might have distinguishing features, it has received no treatment in a secondary source that I've been able to identify. I would suggest that the article be deleted and salted and that the talk page be retained to inform of the prior deletion history. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Denis Phillips[edit]

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

    Is this meteorologist notable? Nothing in the article suggests so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 25 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, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as NN. Ford MF (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom & above <eleland/talkedits> 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unless he's won an Emmy or a major award, a local TV weatherman is not notable. Blueboy96 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Per all above. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok... I'm thinking...but he's a Chief Meteorologist at ABC and on TV, he should be notable!? But then I did a search on just that Chief Meteorologist at ABC and found that there are alot of Chif Meteorologists. delete --Pmedema (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's chief meteorologist for a local ABC affiliate. He's a local weather guy. <eleland/talkedits> 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was WITHDRAWN. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    E-flite Blade CX[edit]

    E-flite Blade CX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    No real references, reads like an advertisement, and unlikely to be notable. Withdrawn to allow [[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061] time to improve. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Clearly not notable and no amount of tags can fix that. Pharmboy (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I just added a dead end and an orphant ag to it. This article is overflowed with tags should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohmpandya (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the original author of this article, I would ask that you reconsider what is notable and what is not. Did any of you actually take the time to do this? I would say not. I also find it interesting that the nominator, an administrator who apparently hadn't noticed that I'd retired the old account a year ago, seems to revel in the fact that because he hadn't heard of the product means he gets to hang non-notability notices on all my old work. In the meantime, I'll enjoy getting paid to write and enjoy moving some real work to Veropedia. Do with this what you will. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry...didn't mean to WP:BITE. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - It has nothing to do with whether or not an editor has heard of it. It has to do with guidelines such as WP:VER and WP:NOTE and WP:RS which explain very clearly what is and is not notable, and how to establish it. This article does not meet those criteria. It would help if you could clarify why you feel this is notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I've left word on your talk page. Waaay too late on my side of the planet to even think about fixing this right now, but I would appreciate being given the time to take another whack at it. This is a very early entry of mine and even now it may prove difficult to describe this model without it coming off as an ad. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Lack of WP:V for content of the articles contraindicates merges. Pigman☿ 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manny Atutahi[edit]

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

    Fictional characters with no verifiable sources to show real-world notability, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Kahu

    Also nominating for the same reason:

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BLACKKITE 22:22, 25 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fictional characters that don't carry passed their own TV show/Movie/Game are not notable enough for an article. Pharmboy (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 ♠ 17:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Justin Pickett[edit]

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

    A minor actor with no significant roles (he has had guest appearances on multiple show - usually for only one episode). He has not made any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to acting. Not everyone with an IMDB page is notable. When/if he gets his "big break" the page can be reconsidered then. Jon513 (talk) 23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This profile still has to be kept thats the whole point of the wilkipedia to see past and presant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.190.24 (talk) 08:32, 28 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, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are no little actors, remember ;) Seems to pass wp:notability. Pharmboy (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The actor will be coming back, so someone will probably write the article again anyways... keep it. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Recurring appearances on a hugely popular show like The Bill make the guy notable IMO. Article does need some real content, but that's another story. Phantomwiki (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep without prejudice. I think Phantomwiki is right: the article needs some work/real content. If a few months go by and it still looks the same, then renominate it for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As a member of the ensemble cast for the entire run of Desmond's, one of Channel 4's most successful and significant sitcoms, he certainly qualifies as a 'notable person' on the strength of this role alone. Niki2006 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added some more info (theatre appearance, musical career) and categories, unfortunatly not much info is easily Googlable - any Desmond's fans or fellow musicians out there with more info? Niki2006 (talk) 14:58, 2 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 speedy delete: CSD G12 as copyright violation. Kinu t/c 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    J. Beckwith Burr[edit]

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

    Non-notable biography. No secondary sources. Prod removed by author. Ford MF (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete Makes a lot of wp:peacock claims, but nothing particularly notable, no SCOTUS cases, etc. Seems to be a db-bio issue. Pharmboy (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hard to tell, there is so much promotional guff in it that it is hard to see through to anything substantial. The subject may be notable but it is probably best to delete the article anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not verifiable, not notable, written like an ad. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I just put a dead end tag and an orphan tag on it. It is written like an ad, should be deleted. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as copyvio of this page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copious free time[edit]

    Copious free time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. This article is little more than a dictionary definition with some etymological information. The sole source is Eric Raymond's version of the "Jargon File," which contains a lot of stuff that ESR just made up. There is no evidence that this phrase is notable; it gets some Google hits, but far less than "trivial example," "random term," and "this is not a step," none of which have, or need articles. <eleland/talkedits> 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete per nom. Seems more like an expanded dictionary def. for something that didn't really need defining. Pharmboy (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Little more than a DICDEF (FIGSPEECH?). J-ſtanContribsUser page 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The nom is correct. Article should be deleted. This mage should be moved or just deleted.Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article is basically a dictionary definition with a quote of someone saying it. It is even stated in the article that it is very similar to another phrase, which already has an article. If not completely deleted and forgotten about, it should be merged with the Real soon now article or at least mentioned in it. Timmehcontribs 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodbye Blues[edit]

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

    Violates wp:crystalball. I searched everywhere, including the bands website and fan sites, there is nothing saying the name of the next album. since the name can NOT be verified and no citations exist, the article must die via crystalball. Pharmboy (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This article should be deleted as per the nom. Ohmpandya (Talk) 03:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Speculated name and release date. Also no sources. Needs to be deleted until enough sourceable information is found. Timmehcontribs 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Angst porn[edit]

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

    Article is about a phrase that obviously violates WP:NEO, is not notable as well. Article was up for speedy, couldn't find a reason for speedy so I changed tag and afd'ed it. Pharmboy (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. (I was the person who put speedy on it.) --DanielRigal (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I pulled one speedy tag that was different (wasn't a speedy reason, by my judgement) but thx for the update, perhaps we can speedy and just be done with it after all. Pharmboy (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Pokemon platinum[edit]

    The result was speedy delete - A1. Article provided very little content, and none that was encyclopedic. --Michael Greiner 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No citations, predicts future game, clearly violates CRYSTALBALL. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put back a speedy tag - it was created earlier today, and deleted, and the creator put it back up ten minutes later. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OBECTION!I read it in a official pokemon magazine that it will come out there is proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude57 (talk • contribs)

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

    The result was Delete.   jj137 ♠ 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Babies in Toyland[edit]

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

    Prod removed. Is an individual Rugrats episode inherently notable? Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per non-notable television episode. We can't fill up all of Wikipedia with nonsense trivial OR about every television episode -- which is better left up to web-sites such as tv.com and others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week Keep if it can be cleaned up and referenced. There seems to be no clear consensus on what shows have individual episodes on Wikipedia (there are quite a few) and Rugrats is/was a popular series. --Sajendra (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    Perhaps I should have checked whether any other Rugrats episodes had articles. --Sajendra (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Right now its a personal description of an episode with no sources. I generally don't mind episodes, when there is a valid source and/or notability established. I'm not seeing that here. MBisanz 05:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If there were more Rugrats episode articles, an argument would be made for Keep. But there is only one episode with a page linked to List of Rugrats episodes, (note that the article in question is not linked from there,) so there is not enough justfication to keep this one article. -- RoninBK T C 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT:. The prod was removed by a disruptive anon editor.--Pmedema (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unencyclopedic. I don't think an individual Rugrats episode should be notable or have third-party sources about it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, don't you mean "without third-party sources"? Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a non-notable episode. It is also written in a non-encyclopedic way. so Delete it...Ohmpandya (Talk) 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.   jj137 ♠ 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DNALinux[edit]

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

    NN Linux distro. Or is it? Prod removed and listing here as a result Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Google turns up about 67K results, from what seems to be reliable sources. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I hadn't heard of it before this AFD, but there seems to be plenty of sources. There are so many distros of Linux, it would be too subjective (OR/POV) to limit distros that has this much coverage. Pharmboy (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as this is a legitimate distro with actual history. And, I seem to recall it being fairly notable at its height of popularity. Certainly, the article's a stub. But there's sufficient information available that a very good article may emerge. As it seems that DNALinux has somewhat "died", perhaps one of the Linux "historians" may stumble across the article and give it some much-needed love. -- Lewellyn talk 14:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's short alright... no need to delete it though. Ohmpandya (Talk) 18:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Rigadoun (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Never heard of it before, but it seems notable enough. Lawrence Cohen 23:09, 3 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&oldid=1081099057"