Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 4

< December 3	December 5 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Speyer[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Only assertion of notability is minor award in 2006 for blog. Does not appear to have been the subject of multiple independant articles.DeleteTheRingess (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any independent coverage aside from the one brief profile linked in the article; not enough to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Massimo Altamore (m:A Fog)===[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I made this Wikipedia entry myself, but I misspelled the name in the title of this page (it should be Altomare, not Altamore), and then I created another identical article with the correct name instead of moving this one to its correct name. Sorry about that. Anyway, this article is superfluous and has an incorrect title, so it should be deleted.

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

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===OBJECTIVE: Ministries===[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep -- fairly notable parody of Christian fundamentalism. It fooled James Randi. Haikupoet 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mercury 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KRC (Scientology)[edit]

Article does not assert the notability of its topic. Written primarily with in-universe, Church of Scientology jargon. Only uses two primary sources (L. Ron Hubbard), and no secondary sources, and has been tagged as such since June 2007, with no improvements. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology). Cirt (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as with ARC (Scientology). The topic seems relevant, and it will be hard to find sources outside of the Scientology mini-universe. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If sources cannot be found outside of Hubbard's own writings and sufficient time has been given with the article tagged for sources to be provided, then the best place for this sort of information is a Church of Scientology website. Notability is not established here. We would not write an entire article on the Bible just referencing the Bible itself. We may quote from it, sure, or reference portions of it, but not the entire thing. Lack of any other sources/mention = lack of notability in this case. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. While notability is asserted ("fundamental concept" of this group), there are no reliable sources or even any quick way to verify that this statement is objectively true. Please, folks, if you want to rescue this one, get some cites ASAP. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated in nom. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with a strong suggestion to merge to Inner Sphere. Joyous! | Talk 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successor States[edit]

The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from BattleTech game articles, and is totally duplicative of them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inner Sphere. JJL (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources on page, gameguide. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Succession of states.—Random832 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No relevance in such redirect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per JJL. Once this grows it will have to be split again, notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per JLL. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under the "bad faith nom" clause, even though the nominator actually recommended deletion in good faith. As noted by several users below, an unreferenced article should not be deleted once it becomes known that references are available. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madden NFL '96[edit]

Unreferenced for about 1 year CruftCutter (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's one of a well known series of video games, just because it's unreferenced doesn't mean it should be deleted. RMHED (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid rationale. This is a very notable video game series, I'm sure references exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, AFD is not cleanup. sh ¤y 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep unless you think that the other 15 Madden games with their own pages should go too. That debate could be had here, but that's not why its nominated. It's nominated because it needs cleanup, and frankly that's not a reason for deletion.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Being unreferenced for a year is not a valid reason for deletion. Rray (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a world of difference between unreferenced and unable to reference. Game Rankings has two (very) notable magazine scores on file for this game (Electronic Gaming Monthly and another magazine), there are doubtless other magazine scores lying around somewhere. Just by copying and pasting the name of the game into my search bar I found this 1up article. It's a notable game in a notable series published by a notable publisher under a notable license... Someone another (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article can easily be referenced, nomination was inappropriate. Bleeding Blue (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close per SNOW. Baegis (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - almost definately notable - page needs a complete overhaul but that's not what AfD is for. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Speedy Keep protect from renom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Ham & Cheese[edit]

Appears to be a local non-notable band, not meeting WP:MUSIC. PROD removed without comment by anon. BLACKKITE 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This band is right up against the border of what qualifies you for the first criteria on WP:BAND.See this and this. However, I'd still like 2-3 longer articles before including them here.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Not really any claim of notability, either. Precious Roy (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. —Scouter Sig 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established, not many sources given. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nom. and everyone above. DavidJ710| talk 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antares (Kit Leee)[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. There are some assertions of notability in his native country, but article does not establish notability outside. Delete TheRingess (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, no actual sources, google search produces lots of petition signatures but no indication of independent, in-depth coverage. WLU (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and WLU (talk · contribs), I agree with both. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mercury 05:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of false friends[edit]

Completely unencyclopaedic. Not one source on the whole list (if there is, the amount is so small that scrolling through, they go unnoticed). A huge number (at least half) of the "false friends" would also never be mistaken by a person with a reasonable knowledge of the language (i.e. they could tell that it's not a noun, it's a verb etc.) Either delete or substantially cut down (preferably delete) ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, list is totally unsourced and OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wow, not too many articles hit AfD that predate me on Wikipedia. This needs cleanup, not deletion. This is not OR, it's the work of dozens if not hundreds of contributers to the project. It needs sources, yes. This should be listed as a page needing sources and left on the site.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sourcing and probably a move to a different title; I'll concede that I haven't heard of this being described as "false friends", but that's apparently the term, as shown by this search from Google books Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Mandsford. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, however, agree with TenPoundHammer. Just a load of OR with no sources. Quite an interesting article but no proof to actually say it is correct. It's also very POV. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This must be one of the dumbest lists I've ever seen. Sorry for the uncivil wording, but I it's honestly the best way to describe it. Mistakes between words in different languages happens all the time this list can go on forever. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially infinitely long list of information about which it is impossible to prove notability. See the "Lead and selection criteria" section of WP:SAL. It may be appropriate and even valuable for some other wiki, but not WP. -Verdatum (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just keep the lead and the wikibooks template? I do agree the list should not be on Wikipedia, but can we keep it as a link, basically? —Scouter Sig 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Is that not already taken care of within False friends? -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. —Scouter Sig 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Scouter Sig 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can and should be improved in several respects, but articles that can be improved should not be deleted. The article currently lacks selection criteria, but they can be added, and with good selection criteria, the list won't become endless. Sources can be added as well. Finally, the list has a concise, at-a-glance format that the narrative examples in False friends don't provide. Valerius (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or massively clean-up. I'd say that many of these are either false cognates instead of false friends or are just flat-out wrong. Plus, the list is ridiculously long. RobertM525 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stump[edit]

I kind of hate to do this, seeing as I think the Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz is one of the funniest things I've ever seen, but oh well.

John Stump's biography has been tagged for notability since September with no improvements. The text is very short and contains some inappropriate tone ("no official contact with him"). His only compositions are three parody pieces (which as I stated above, I find to be freaking hilarious), but the pieces themselves don't seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also included two related musical satire pieces by different authors. Will the closing admin please make sure all five pages are deleted before closing? The last few times I've done bundle AfDs, only one of the pages got nuked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into John Stump. —Scouter Sig 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still wouldn't take care of the notability issue, which is the main reason I put these pages up for AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm new to editing the wiki, so I wonder why this article is to be deleted?

And if it is, will there be a redirect from "the death waltz", to the compositor instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.74.89 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The composer, John Stump, doesn't meet our crtieria for biographies of living people. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. The compositions are hilarious but unfortunately not notable, the others in the same category (Satirical Musical Compositions) are "Atushi Ojisama and Ijigen Waltz" by Yamasaki Atusi and "Lament of the Introspective Turnbuckle" by Andrew Fielding: these do not appear to be notable either. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom unless there are some reliable sources brought forward to prove a notable impact on the music scene. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unfortunately. Need to also include the cat and contents of Category:Satirical Musical Compositions. Can we put them up on Wikipedia:Silly Things? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Chen (Serbian rapper)[edit]

Doubt notability, but don't want to be hasty. Not good with Cyrillic names, notability of Serbians. Dloh cierekim 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. RMHED (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no references it fails WP:BIO. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RMHED and Sbowers3. DavidJ710| talk 09:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haverstraw Town Police[edit]

Nothing marks out this town police force as particularly unusual or notable. thisisace (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even say what state Haverstraw is in, not that it matters. While I don't believe we have notability requirements for police departments, this article dosn't imply that they would qualify if we did. Have they innovated something? Led a battle? Supported something no other police force would that became important? Since it doesn't say it does, Delete.--CastAStone|^(talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable small town police department. Ridernyc (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Non-notable New York State local PD. While it asserts notability, based on controversial and/or decorated officers, notability is not inherited. Zero cites. It may be possible to create an article from cites from Google, but much of those are cruft or Wiki-mirrors. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom SGGH ^speak! 11:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were at least one or two sources I suppose a merge and redirect would be in order, but there are none to speak of. RFerreira (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette[edit]

Delete Article purports to be about a generic type of product, but is actually an advert for a particular product Mayalld (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its an advert. MortimerCat (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. thisisace (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as advertising. Also, you forgot to put the AfD tag on the page itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, TW glitch there Mayalld (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete: No assertion of notability. Recreatable if notability can be demonstrated. 1 != 2 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glitz (software)[edit]

Text is almost speediable for lack of an assertion of notability (and very little context), but since this was already subject of a deletion review I'm seeking community input. Unless someone can add sources which establish notability this article should be deleted or merged. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion/evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Chealer (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete -- [ip] for balance and technology reasons. Glitz, like Cairo, is an intergral part of the freedesktop.org project. It needs more work. The mailing lists contain ample information. This project provides opengl stability to X.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.91.230 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone translate this? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia cannot compete with Freshmeat and cover such volatile topics. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What the above IP user was saying is basically that Glitz is notable because of it's important role in freedesktop.org, a pretty big linux movement that connects several Unix operating systems. DavidJ710| talk 10:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to withdraw if someone can add to the article, but as it is, it doesn't even assert notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Friedman[edit]

Delete unsourced one-line sub-stub blp about a musician; fails WP:BIO, an orchestra may be notable not all its players - as they may change from time to time - are notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7 - no assertion of notability. --Thin boy 00 @996, i.e. 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you kidding me? An individual who has been a principal with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra--the greatest orchestra in the world--for over forty years is not "notable"? For Christ's sake, give me a fucking chance to get something there before you go apeshit and try to nuke it. If nothing else, the speedy tag is totally inappropriate since there's already an AfD there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil, profanity isn't really needed. I'm sorry for placing the tag on, but the article just plain did not assert notability. If you would like to expand the article, then go ahead and do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there was nothing uncivil about that remark. Second, notability is irrelevant and unnecessary, so no such assertion is required--the only proper criterion for inclusion is verifiable existence. Third, even so, saying someone "...is the principal trombonist for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra." is a pretty massive assertion of notability. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, unlike some people I don't have ten hours a day to devote to Wikipedia. I wrote a stub last night because that was all I had time for; I came back today to try to expand it, and instead I had to spend the limited time I could have spent improving that article defending it from some ridiculous attempt to do away with it. This is exactly why, about a year ago, I wrote my essay Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. If the nominator had a problem with it being a stub he should have requested that it be expanded. The mere fact of this nomination is way off the mark. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending improvements from User:Kmweber or someone. I'll see what I can find too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - there's plenty of time for the user who created this article to write something more than a single sentence, and then put it into article-space once it at least minimally meets the community standards for reliable independent sourcing, notability, etc. Just drop this sentence into his userspace, make it something that at least barely makes the grade, and then he can put it back whenever it actually constitutes an article. (And since it might matter, I'm just going on the policies that have already been cited by others: WP:BIO, speedy A7, etc.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in my userspace and working on it there as you suggest would defeat the whole purpose of a wiki. You're relatively new here (having only been a semi-regular contributor for the past year and a half or so), so you weren't around when most of the major articles here got started. But the whole point of a wiki is that articles grow organically, starting with a sentence or two and then, through small contributions by anyone who has anything to add, becoming a full-fledged article. If it's kept in my userspace, where hardly anyone will see it, that won't happen. I'm afraid Wikipedia is being overrun by a new generation of "editor"--they can recite policy like the alphabet, but they don't actually get Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using this AfD as a space for you to write commentary about other Wikipedians. It's insulting and irrelevant. Feel free to continue to rebut my point without making such comments. I disagree with your understanding of how Wikipedia functions, and believe this article should be deleted. That's how an AfD works. We'll see what consensus in this instance is when the AfD closes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion. Being a principal at a world-class orchestra like the CSO is far beyond simply being any old player in any old orchestra (which, if it were true, would be correctly nominated for deletion). Chubbles (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable start to an article. such a position in a major article is very near the top of the profession.DGG (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Way over the bar for notability, as a quick Google search will confirm. I can understand (but don't endorse) the contribitor's reaction to having a speedy deletion tag slapped on an article which had such a clear indication of importance/significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How quick was your Google search? Much of the results obtained by searching "Jay Friedman" are not about this Jay Friedman. Most appear to be for one "Bruce Jay Friedman." Some are for a sexologist. Most of the rest are for others (including several other people named "____ Jay Friedman") . Only a handful are for this Jay Friedman, and they aren't exactly Wikipedia-class sources. In the first ten pages of results (100 Google hits) there are: his personal website, his little bio page for his work as an instructor, one self-published fan site, another self-published site - a database of trombone information, a store or two ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and an mp3 download page with a single (non-working?) item listed. There is only one source that could even reasonably be considered a source for this article (before being rejected, perhaps), here. It's a small profile in a Chicago "city guide" that features local live music (among other things). This guide considers itself a database of restaurants, bars, music venues, etc - not a journalistic or reliable source, nor a place to establish notability for anyone. Try it: a search for "Jay Friedman" gives 80,000 hits. A search for "Jay Friedman" trombone gives 800, and a cursory (yes, only cursory, I will admit) look through those 800 doesn't seem to reveal any reliable, independent, published sources that could establish notability for this person or that could be used to expand this thing beyond either a single sentence, or a few sentences that duplicate the content found on his official bios on his own website(s). --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wasn't referring to the number of ghits, but to the fact that when I searched for "Jay Friedman" trombone I found a good source in the first couple of pages, which I added to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the short bio on a self-published trombonist database, which isn't reallly a reliable source and isn't really evidence of notability? --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not self-published. According to Trombones Online "All professional trombone artists undergo a review process before a new profile goes live in our database.", which does make it a reliable source to verify all of the notable achievements listed in that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... how does that not make it self-published? Everything I put on my website undergoes a review process. That doesn't mean it isn't self-published. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-published, because it is published by Trombones Online with editorial review, not by Jay Friedman. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "independence" with "self-published." The "self" in "self-published" is not necessarily the subject of the article. Please refer to the relevant part of verifiability policy. This "Trombones Online" is not a publication. It is a website run by two people, and has no academic or journalistic editorial oversight. It is a self-published source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You, like many newer editors, know policy backwards and forwards. But you don't understand what policy actually is (descriptive rather than prescriptive) or that the whole point of a wiki is that these things are done bit by bit, as each new person with something to contribute adds a sentence or two. To insist that an article meet certain standards right away is ridiculous, and decidedly un-wiki. The whole point is for collaborative writing over the long term. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, personal commentary that comments on me instead of the issue at hand is inappropriate and rude. I will not respond further to this sort of condescending commentary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something an "uncivil personal attack" doesn't make it so. I am not attacking you personally, but rather your fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. And it is quite relevant here, as your whole justification for supporting deleting this article is predicated on that very misunderstanding. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> calm down everybody: several people think that this guy is notable. Well the average biography one reads in a good encyclopedia has where they dude was born and on what date, what his education is, why he is important, all from sources independent of the person themselves. If you can't find those (a) either WP doesn't aim to be a good encyclopedia, or (b) this guy just hasn't generated the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. All this "assertion of notability" talk is about speedy deletion; that has been declined now the article is being put to the proof - this is a BLP where we need to get it right and sub-stubs that have no real info are just wrong. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) A nice quote from WP:BIO should provide some help here: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Since the only source is not independent of the subject, but a reviewed submission by him, it doesn't qualify to establish notability. A first trombonist at an orchestra is positionally little different that a VP at a notable company - top of his/her division with some well-qualified people beneath him/her; there's no exception for the trombonist nor the corporate big-wig: published sources showing notability or begone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Google News Archives comes up with enough about this guy to warrant a keep. [5]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice for later deletion if a significant amount of time goes by without expansion. --TheOther Bob 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But I do disagree with Kurt when I say that [very first edit] is insufficient. Yes, it's the point of Wikipedia for everyone to help improve and grow (I really like your use of the word "organic) each article. However, it should not be anyone's job to find out if that one sentence is a good seedling or a weed. If I come across a stub, I can enjoy helping it grow. But a single sentence, out of context... I could write any similar sentence about any real or fictional thing and there would be no obvious difference. —Scouter Sig 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been demonstrated. Lawrence Cohen 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular segments of Eat Bulaga![edit]

Seemingly arbitrarily chosen "popular segments" of a TV show. Entirely original research, contains information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title itself is a bit POV. Also, this could have been merge to the main article. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete I thought merge would be a better alternative but it will simply bloat the parent article since no references are shown to describe the qualifiers needed to achieve "popular" status. The parent article could use some references and expansion though.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unneeded fancrust (whoops, I mean Fancruft), does not assert notability, heck I could waste 10 minutes on that show like that Joey guy talking about why we don't need this article! ViperSnake151 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the "popular" segments are still current. Perhaps only one segment truly deserves mention, and that was the now-discontinued Little Miss Philippines segment. But I wouldn't create an article about it either. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adrian Speyer[edit]

Probably vanity. 18 google hits. Gamaliel 06:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, author wants it gone, probable mistake. Wyss 22:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is the above the author? Looks like page got blanked, that's a speedy. All that's left are the messages. hfool 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Wyss. GRider\^talk 18:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Potentially could even have been a speedy as notability is not asserted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmerza foundation[edit]

This article lacks any reliable independent sources, and is about an organization that seems to be purely local in scope and seems not to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without demonstration of notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites no sources and fails WP:ORG. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am sorry that its not the greatest thing since sliced bread. I made the Shahmirzadian page (yeah I am from there) and this non-profit has left an indelible mark on the village. It built a school and a hospital there. Furthermore, how on earth can you reference this when its U.S.-based but Iran-oriented? Still looking for the Shahmirzadian Times in English in the States. Frankly, reference are very overrated blogs count for Pete's sake. I am wondering why this is tagged for deletion when so many other pages are not. Your subjective interpretations should not be allowed to govern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm650 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Verifiability is among the most important policies on Wikipedia. If you cannot verify information, how can you trust it? If Wikipedia can't be trustworthy, then why are we wasting our time writing it? Blogs aren't generally considered acceptable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiablity#Self-published sources (online and paper). Reliable sources in the local language are acceptable, though those in English are preferred. And as for other articles, well, other things always exist. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There I added a reference, not great but its a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm650 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure it's a noble ogranisation, but it lacks reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my fault you cannot read Farsi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm650 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuccessTech Academy shooting[edit]

This is the third time this has been nominated. The first two were immediately following the shooting, which definitely clouded everyone's judgment. Let me preface by saying that this nom has nothing to do with a lack of sources...it's a question of notability. Two months later - after I strongly argued for keep in the first AfDs, I believe this does fall into WP:NOT#NEWS. When it comes down to it, it was merely the biggest news story on the day it happened. The event made the school notable...but - in hindsight - it doesn't seem that the event itself was all that notable. Deleting the article and merging the content into SuccessTech Academy - I believe - would serve the best purpose. Smashville^BONK! 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for the event. I believe that this is just abuse of WP:CONSENSUS. If consensus can't be accepted when articles are kept, why should it be accepted if you can round up enough people to delete the article. "Consensus can change" requires legitimate efforts at discussion prior to taking another stab at AfD, and no evidence has been provided to justify abuse of Wikipedia process for a clearly settled matter. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to assuming good faith? --Smashville^BONK! 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It went away when everyone's judgment was clouded. What happened to respecting consensus? Alansohn (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus can change. My opinion changed. The AfDs were the day of and the day after the shooting. It's two months later. --Smashville^BONK! 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A read of the closure of the most recent AfD on this article, which closed barely six weeks ago, stated that "WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this incident cited in SuccessTech Academy shooting#References would therefore suggest that this incident is, indeed, an 'encyclopedic subject'." Nothing has changed in the interim that would undermine this conclusion. A thorough disrespect for consensus is never acceptable. Continued abuse of consensus only undermines any respect for whatever result may be achieved in this third attempt at deletion, and the forthcoming third, fourth, fifth, etc. attempts that will be undertaken in the future. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not expire. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to withdraw the nom due to the fact that my actions are being viewed in bad faith. --Smashville^BONK! 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator says this is not notable. However, in its article on the Westroads Mall shootings, the BBC News website refers to this event in a timeline of 2007 US shootings. Surely that suggests that it's notable? 81.159.254.193 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.P.'s can't !vote, sorry. Scarian ^Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is notable. Scarian ^Talk 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough to warrant its own article. Qwerty (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete for now. No reason this can't be completed once there is some actual content to write about. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 World Junior Handball World Championships[edit]

Unsourced one-line article about a tournament next year. WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future event and I note there is not a 2007 article. MortimerCat (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Mmmmm Vodka, sorry just thinking out loud. It appears that the wheeze of nominating this for deletion in order to force improvements has failed. There does appear to be sufficient claim to notability to preclude deleting this for the lack of sources at this AFD and since no-one seems to feel strongly about deleting it, I think we can give it some time to grow. A continuing lack of sources would certainly significantly count against the article were we to see it back at AFD again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ledo Degtinė[edit]

Article about a vodka was blanked by anon claiming no sources; it has apparently received some awards which may be sourceable, but is it WP:N? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wish this sub was as clean as the subject claims to be, but it appears to be valid and notable per awards. Not technically spam, just unsourced and new. Tag it and throw back into the water, or vodka, as it were. :-) Bearian (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, not spam. I don't feel as strongly about deleting this as other nominations hence no Delete in the nomination but this process should flesh out sources as I don't speak or read the language in which such sources are likely to be found. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dickson (DJ)[edit]

Delete unsourced blp about a DJ with nothing to show he's notable per WP:BIO or WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Karanacs (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7 no claim of notability. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO; no references. (A speedy would likely be declined due to barely-there claim of notability.) Precious Roy (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Smith (activist)[edit]

Arguably, the article fails to claim notability, but I figured I'd send it here to AFD for review. This candidate has a slim chance of winning the Liberation nomination, nevermind the presidential race. Her awards might be mildly notable, but there doesn't seem to be any information on them online. I'd say delete for now, and allow recreation if she shows any sign of winning the Liberation nomination. The article also suffers from WP:UNDUE, WP:ADVERT, and apparently WP:COATRACK from our friends in the Ron Paul camp. Burzmali (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per John J. Bulten's comments on the article's discussion page. As for WP:COATRACK from "the Ron Paul camp", Paul is only mentioned in one sentence at the end of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as there is no clear indication how the criteria on the talk page relate to WP:N. She has only trivial coverage in Google News Archive. Per this party site she is marginally best-ranked of the also-rans in a notoriously obscure party. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice how she ranks just behind "None of the above" and "Candidate to be named later". Burzmali (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Christine Smith is an author of a book about a notable musician (John Denver) and a candidate for President. Her Presidential campaign is regulated by the FEC and has reported 6 distinct campaign contributors from 5 states outside her state of residence (Colorado). I personally think that many RFDs that hinge on notability use more bits for storage and transfer than if the article was just allowed to be. I have fixed the WP:COATRACK issue relative to Ron Paul (I hope). Thane Eichenauer (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-notable book about a notable person doesn't make the author notable. Filling out a form and mailing it to the FEC does not make you notable. Convincing your relatives in other states to send you a few hundred buck for your campaign doesn't make you notable. Burzmali (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author a a non-notable book. Perhaps if she does become the candidate of her minor party for president, she might possible have enough medium attention to become notable, but she certainly is not notable now. WP does not exist to give PR to would-be politicians. DGG (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of many wannabees. No WP:RS for WP:BLP? Deleteography. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wah Chong Leonetti[edit]

beyond hope CruftCutter 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - been tagged "in-universe" since July and not improved. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow to be recreated. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't even an attempt to establish notability. I read this article, and it didn't even make sense. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per A1, no context; failing that, Strong/Snowball Delete --Thin boy 00 @0, i.e. 23:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a horribly written article that no one has tried to improve. Baegis (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This debate is not yet closed. CruftCutter (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Lorenzo-Giguere[edit]

This article was stubbed due to WP:BLP and privacy concerns following a complaint to WP:OTRS. aving removed the coats, the remaining rack is of questionable notability. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability.Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and this are likely the deleted material. There isn't much more coverage of her part of the scandal, though, and her position as a deputy chief of a DOJ section is not normally one that is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- you could make a case for notability based on Dhartung's Boston Globe reference, but I agree with Guy's concerns re: WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP. I also recommend protecting the page from re-creation if it's deleted. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, but don't salt or anything. If Susana Lorenzo-Giguere is the subject of this ongoing probe, and it expands to a criminal case, could be easily notable. But for now, delete. Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) by WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE![edit]

Fail to see the importance of the subject. Speedy refused.Hammer1980·^talk 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) (most of the article is copied and pasted from here). Hut 8.5 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity), hardly warrants its own article. RMHED 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above.--CastAStone|^(talk) 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) for reasons mentioned above. -JDCMAN (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Redirect per overwhelming consensus. In addition, we can't have an article on every YouTube video ever uploaded (notability is not inherited). --Thin boy 00 @994, i.e. 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did the celebrity give birth to a video? Wikidemo (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to...I really shouldn't need to go on further than that. -Verdatum (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per sourcing, and advert-like appearance. Blogs are not reliable sources.. 1 != 2 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netvouz[edit]

No assertion or proof or notability. It's written like an ad for the product. Delete TheRingess (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately sourced; one blog review and one unclear-authority "search engine news" blog are not enough for WP:RS. No relevant results for Netvouz in a Google News archive search.--McGeddon (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per G11 blatant advert. --Thin boy 00 @2, i.e. 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a reference by 3spots, a blog dedicated to the survey of social software. I don't want to go all wp:otherstuff, but compare this list with this list. So, unless one thinks that wikipedia's coverage of social bookmarking should start with delicious and stop with digg...--victor falk 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you can convince me that this software has received reviews from multiple independent sources, then I'm willing to change my vote. I'm not concerned with Wikpedia's coverage per se, but I am concerned with issues of notability. In the article's current state, in my opinion, it does not sufficiently establish the notability of this software.TheRingess (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have independent sources; three of them.--victor falk 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just reread McGeddon's comment above and have to agree with them. Two blog reviews and one search engine news blog aren't enough for me either.TheRingess (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandia Search Engine News, while not the cannon in this area (that would be www.seo-news.com), is still a respectable source. But the really good sources are the two blogs. A few years one could have considered it ironic debating the appropriateness of blogs as a source for an eminently web 2.0 thing like a social bookmarking site, but it feels utterly stale now. Much as I appreciate McLuhan's "the medium is the message", this is not a correct application of it. Like saying that the dailies but not magazines are ok for satisfying wp:rs and wp:v. Have you perused those two? Do they strike you as the kind of "Dear Diary,..."-blogs intersped with a random "!!OMFG!!!! netvouz iz teh l33t social bookmarking site!!!?!1! ROFLOL!11!!" post? They could as well be named "Humpty's online newsletter on web 2.0 stuff" and "Dumpty's online technical journal for social software". --victor falk 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS is quite clear about blogs - we should be careful about using self-published sources, but they're fine if they're written by recognised authorities in the field (even if they say "OMFG!"). 3spots seems to be a generic, anonymous, well-meaning amateur blog, though, and Susanne Koch of Pandia does not appear to be particularly authoritative. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to say that Lavoisier and Tycho Brahe were shoddy and inept scientists? Personally, I prefer a reliable and verifiable amateur to an "authority" who says "oh my fucking god" as a source, but that's just my taste. What about Profy [6] for a more "professional" source then? It seems authoritative enough to be used as a source for Twango. Thrice, even. victor falk 14:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only using the word "amateur" in contrast to the "established expert" that WP:SPS requires. I'm not familiar with Profy's Leslie Poston, but if you can demonstrate that she's recognised as an expert, then that's fine. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(on a side note, wp:sps says that "amateurs" should be treated more carefully when being considered as sources than "established experts", not that they are to be rejected out of hand. I think one should reflect upon the fact that there is absolutely no reason why an amateur could not be an established expert in their field. Unless, of course, you're an Aristotelian)

Here you are. --victor falk 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrocompressor jet-engine[edit]

Evidently a hoax, term gets zero Google hits. Creator's only other page, Seegorgian, is also up for AfD as a possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent and completely unverifiable. Hqb 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ge alchemist has been indefinitely blocked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculously implausible - freon is a gas at STP; you can't make an engine component out of it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a pretty evident hoax. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks. sh ¤y 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article that is full of non-exsistent crap. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 11:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Sancho 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rizzo[edit]

This comic strip has no sources except the creators' website, it's effectively self-syndicated (this is Google's first hit for the syndicate, King Creators United), the collection book is self-published (the article on the book was previously deleted). There is no indication of notability. Prod was removed by someone who trusted the article's grandiose claims. Huon (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the person who deprodded it, I didn't 'trust the article's grandiose claims', I just didn't think PROD was suitable, i.e. deletion may not be uncontroversial. Please limit yourself to presenting your own arguments.--Michig (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it has been published in book form, running to a second edition, although it may have been self-published - publisher is Booksurge (an Amazon company). I tried to find further sources but couldn't find anything significant. If the comic strip has appeared in 'over 20 periodicals', it may be sufficiently notable, but the article really needs some reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding T 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it might be small, which is exactly why people might want to look it up. It's not completely unknown. --.Tom. (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still no independent sources. AnteaterZot 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Random832 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)—Random832 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal established notability per WP:N. The article's author, Ram Patu (talk · contribs), created this article, Rizzo: Year One (deleted here when it became clear that BookSurge was a vanity press), Sean Simmans, & Chris Riseley (deleted here), almost establishing a walled garden. If kept, the broken source for the SLC Weekly claim could be updated to this, I guess... — Scientizzle 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to delete. 1 != 2 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polyneutron[edit]

This represents the ideas of one un-notable person "John C. Fisher" that has not received any notice outside the fringe community he promotes his ideas in. Subject to the rules of fringe theory inclusion and undue weight as well as representing original resesarch, this article about a pseudoscientific concept does not belong in our encyclopedia because it is not notable enough to have received any mention in mainstream scientific journals, the popular press, or even skeptical debunking. It is the opinion of the nominator that the article exists solely to inappropriately promote the idea and use Wikipedia as a platform to advertise for Fisher's fringe theory. ScienceApologist 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete published but fringe and apparently not widely noted. Lies somewhere on the border of meeting WP:RS but conflicting with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT per nom. JJL 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no evidence Fisher promoted his own ideas on wikipedia. I do not think ScienceApologist is qualified make qualifications such as un-notable or fringe theory. The topic is referenced, nothing wrong there. I see no qualitative difference between the polyneutrons (weird?) or the tetraneutrons (valid research?), all looks equally weird to me. V8rik (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not sure - the idea is not mainstream physics, but Fisher (and helpers) appears to be honestly working towards a real theory. neutrons have mass, and so they are measureable....that these poly neutrons don't seem to be observed through normal methods is troubling towards the pseudo-ness of the work. There are some sources, and some quasi-reliable review, but no straight up mainstream reivew/discussion of the work. Rather than fringe and undo weight arguements, the status of the article should be more on straight up notability and reliable sources evaluations, and I'm not sold on deletion or inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SA. This articles gives no indication of attention from either the mainstream physics community or the press/public. The sources are all primary, and thus there is no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fisher simply has not got measurable replies from the scientific community. Even criticism would imply some relevance, but there is only silence. --Pjacobi (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice for recreation if sources other than Fisher can be found indicating that the idea has become notablie in the scientific community. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary into neutronium 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first part of the article seems... "off" from a scientific standpoint. The history section just looks like an excuse to throw in some cold fusion theories, I don't see the connection at all. Failing that, we apparently already have an article on neutronium, and I see no real difference between the two. sh ¤y 23:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, the difference would be that neutronium is actually accepted by the scientific community ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or merge - I suppose some of this might be worthy of a footnote at Tetraneutron or Neutronium. I don't want to say it's a POV-fork - that rather presumes bad faith. However, if there's any information from this article that appears in high-quality sources, it would be better mentioned in one of those articles, and if there isn't, it shouldn't be presented as an established theory. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no serious scientific or even popular discussion of this theory. It's a theoretical particle invented to explain a phenomenon, cold fusion, which doesn't exist either. The reason there's no proper peer reviewed articles on this topic is because it isn't science. Polyneutons would be big enough to detect so why aren't they detected? We can detect neutrinos and they have no charge, almost no mass, and pass through matter at nearly the speed of light as if it wasn't there. Gravitons are a bit more elusive I'll admit but at least there's a decent theory to say they should be there. Polyneutons, on the other hand, are not detected because they don't exist. Nick mallory (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like classic fringe science, non-notable. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after tear-down and rebuild. The term polyneutron is a legitimate concept that goes back to Maria Goeppert-Mayer and Edward Teller in 1949 (see Phys. Rev. 76, 1226 - 1231 (1949)). The Mayer-Teller polyneutron model assumes that “an assembly of neutrons forms a nuclear fluid which will not spontaneously disintegrate into neutrons.” They use the model to explain the formation of the heavy elements. The problem with the polyneutron article is that it focuses on their use to explain cold fusion, not with the concept itself. This article can be saved, but it needs a brain transplant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkmurray (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we better can have a completely new article after deletion. Searching for references I've also seen that the term "polyneutron" was used in theories of nucleosynthesis in the 40s and 50s. Obsolete theory but maybe of historical interest. --Pjacobi (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of any evidence that the topic is discussed within the scientific community, even in the context of debunking it, it seems clear that Polyneutron is not suitably notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Following deletion, a separate article can be created for the older concept with the same name (mentioned above by Kkmurray), if it is notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People keep insisting the article is about fringe science (unlike tetraneutron or neutronium but why?). Fisher published in the journal Fusion Technol, does not exist anymore, but I have no indications it is a irregular journal. V8rik (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unlike the article under discussion, tetraneutron is about a case where the experimental result: "we looked, but didn't find them" was entirely consistent with the mainstream theoretical prediction: "they're not quite bound". JohnAspinall (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Skimming citations to Fusion Technol, it seems to have been used to publish cold fusion theories, which have been well outside mainstream physics since soon after it first appeared. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's "fringe de la fringe". As the edit history and talk page will show, I have been attempting to inject mainstream physics in the article for balance, but I do not believe the topic really deserves that level of attention. I am sympathetic to Kkmurray's urge to provide a brain transplant, but urge facial reconstruction too, i.e. the primary title should not be Polyneutron, but something like "Mayer-Teller Polyneutron Theory" with only a redirect from the current article's title. JohnAspinall (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, as a fringe theory or otherwise.DGG (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegorgian[edit]

WP:NFT, WP:V —Caesura ^(t) 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as admittedly made-up. Pastordavid 20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:MADEUP (and could somebody else look at this editor's only other article?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This note was moved from the talk page: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please dont delete. Ge alchemist 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google doesn't think it exists; definite hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ge alchemist has been indefinitely blocked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, Consensus is clear that the article should be kept and cleaned up, even though there are several weak arguments for keeping. Will add a cleanup tag to the article. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters[edit]

Completely unencyclopaedic article with massive flaws. Where to begin... Wikipedia is WP:NOT for hundreds of kilobytes dedicated to summarizing minutae about fictional secondary characters (plot elements), not to mention not a place for indiscriminant information, nonexistant notability, no reliable secondary sources, full of blatant copyvio images with deceptive copyright tags. Also, be prepared to be pre-emptively called a deletionist jackass for trying to apply our rules/standards.

~~Merge and~~ Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot merge and delete. Well, you could, but it'd be a pain in the ass for the admin who would merge the histories. You want just merge. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There is no content in this article that qualifies as "real-world context" (or "brief" :-) ) that would merit merging into another article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything to merge, or a place to merge it to. Article is nothing but plot summaries, no real world context, no secondary sources. Ridernyc 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for starters, the nominator doesn't even understand that the deleting editors around here don't understand the concept of MERGE. It's not their job. That's what normal editing is for. It's delete or keep. There is no merges around here. Additionally, even if merge was an option, it is TOTALLY inappropriate in this case. All the Avatar pages are actually too big as is, and most need splitting/trimming, not merging. Secondly, overly much info is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for cleaning it up or splitting it. The shear amount of readership and editing the page gets by an absolutely insane number of people make it more notable that a good percentage of the articles on wiki and this is a clear example of empty criticism. It also makes it difficult to do editing on as it gets so many edits (it got ~30 edits in 1 day on dec 3 by ~18 different editors). If you have issue with the images, take it to the proper place, the images. Additionally, secondary sources is a guideline, not a policy, and shouldn't even be mentioned in a deletion discussion. Verifiable content is the policy, and the fact that these characters exist is easily verifiable (the very images the nominator complains about are making it pretty clear the character exists), and the article already has some referencing beyond that. One last thing, even the indiscriminant information says "A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Yes, they need editing, deleting is not warranted.Derekloffin 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a courtesy suggestion to salvage any germane information from the article, which should be deleted.
Neither the frequency of edits, nor your speculative "absolutely insane number of people" has any mention or place in our general notability guideline and specific fiction guideline.
Existance of fraudulently used images is indicative (to me) that the shephards of an article are more concerned with expanding the article than they are interested in following rules (especailly when dealing with copyright violations). I'm especially concerned with stuff like this image, in which the uploader claims to have created it and released it to the public domain.
WP:RS is our most sacred guideline, and certainly has place in a deletion discussion.
If you're going to quote a guideline, please don't attempt to change it's meaning by leaving out the qualifier. The entire quote reads (emphasis added):

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
— WP:NOT#PLOT

.

None of the content within this article relates to "real world context and sourced analysis" (or any of the rest of the requirement). It also clearly states "not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". A huge article dedicated to minor characters in a cartoon is way beyond a "brief plot summary".

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup a character list, no matter how damn crufty it may be, is an acceptable fork however you slice it. The title seems odd, though not a terribly big deal, and Blaxthos' point about images is relevant, but all this leans towards cleanup. At worst, a merge would be the desired result. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fork is only acceptable if the content is compliant with the notability guidelines and does not fail WP:NOT (this article fails both). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thus why I suggested cleanup. I don't even watch this show and know that half these characters are significant to the plot. It needs a new name and some plot stabbing, that's all. Lists of characters are acceptable forks, this one was just poorly executed. Like I said, at worst this needs merging, not deleting. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a "brief summary of the plot" wouldn't include detailed information regarding (or even mention of) admitted "secondary characters". Even if we grant your notability argument (which I have trouble following), how does any of this merit an encyclopaedic treatment of the topic (specifically, real-world context and impact that is not solely dedicated to plot elements, as required in WP:NOT)? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep going on about that, but it's not terribly relevant. It is one thing to have a single character article that fails NOT. Character list articles exist for the express purpose of clumping together characters which on their own could not pass but as a group are relevant to the understanding of the topic, which these are. You've swept yourself up in the letter of the rules without considering the spirit. Just because they don't have the info doesn't mean they can't, and just because it's an excessively long block of crap doesn't mean outright deletion is the answer. One does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's just a fundamental difference of opinion -- I do not believe Wikipedia serves as a repository for massive amounts of in-universe discussion of plot elements. Accusation of wikilawyering not withstanding, most of our guidelines seem to explicitly state exactly my point. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

making a large list solely consisting of plot elements is no different then making 20 separate articles consisting solely of plot elements.Ridernyc (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The former is still considered more acceptable than the latter, and our guidelines state that such topics should for the most part be considered an extension of the parent article. Our arguing aside, I stand by my position: this article, or where it is merged to, is acceptable even with a lack of real-world info, as it furthers understanding of the topic (albeit excessively at the moment) for readers, and deleting the information would be harmful to that end. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy or guideline (beyond WP:IAR) that supports your claim? If not, I have to say that explicit instructions on direct point trump an implicit "spirit" based on "furthering understanding". /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also common sense and Wikipedia precedent. Not all decisions need to be hard-outlined in rules, as you are quite insistent on doing. The characters as a group are notable and the article with cleaning is a perfectly acceptable content fork. I'm tried of repeating this. Even merging is fine, but deletion is simply not a good way to deal with this article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Even the title is a major POV mess; who is to say that those characters are "major" or "secondary". Otherwise, merge into main characters list if there is one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim (very much) and Merge to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters per nom (leaving transwiki as an editorial option). Other issues like images can/should be addressed outside this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that the Avatar project group is very open to suggestions and working to improve the project and articles. I've started a discussion with them about removing the individual episode articles and so far they are very open to trying to merge them and improve the situation. Many of them realize that alot of the articles cross the line. Ridernyc (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
want to actually make some suggestions there? Find some sources, find some real world content. If you can't then this can not be cleaned up to meet policy. Ridernyc (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He does not need to do that. Those who edit the article do. Ask them. — Someguy0830 (T |C) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he is making unfounded claims that the article can be cleaned up. When you make claims you need to support them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
No, when you make claims in an article, you need to support them. This is an AfD, where no such requirement is necessary. No effort has been made and that is the core of his argument. He is not required to make the effort to support the claim. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debate, pretty much by definition claims need to be supported in a debate. He made a rather meaningless statemnt in the debate. a statement he repeatedly makes in many debates. If he wants his statment to mean anything he needs to support it. Ridernyc (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read the guideline he constantly links to it has little to do with this debate.Ridernyc (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you'd be wrong. No effort was made to review or do something about the cruft. The whole attitude here is basically "to hell with the characters because they're crufty," when anyone who takes a few minutes to review the material can easily see that a merge proposal would have been a far more appropriate venue, which AfD isn't for. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then he needs to say that and not just "AFD is not cleanup". Ridernyc (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop arguing about whether or not he should have supported his argument, this is a nomination for deletion. Besides, he gave a link to a guideline explaining himself. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article may need a lot of cleanup, but the article is linked to often throughout numerous amounts of articles relating to the topic. If the article is deleted, every time a page links to a character on this page, it would have to be re-written, explaining who the character is. This is a cumbersome process and since the article just needs some clean-up or to be merged, deletion is not the answer. I plead you to change your mind. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would solve that problem, as would a simple AWB substing run. That kind of harm isn't enough reason. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect and an AWB run is not going to edit twenty or more articles to include a character description in context. It is not as simple as putting in two sentences. The section of each article has to be edited to include an explanation of the character. In addition, your rebuttal still does not justify how this article should be deleted instead of just cleaned up or merged. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing to keep or merge, just so that's clear. Reasonably, these characters would still be covered elsewhere, hence a redirect would do the job. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. As long as the article is not deleted, I'm good with that. In fact, it would be better if merged. However, if anybody comes along and says it should be deleted, they need to know the real difficulty of replacing the information in the article, referenced or unreferenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Combination articles & lists like this are the way to go for minor characters who individually might not be appropriate for an article. They are a useful compromise. The individual characters do not have to be notable--they are just part of the content. DGG (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it within our remit to be this detailed? Should we be going into such detail in our plot summarising and characterisation, to the detriment of contextualising and the encyclopedic method? Not sure where this fits in between not being paper and not being indiscriminate. Hiding T 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden, and no I don't need to justify if cleanup is possible. It is reasonable that an article of this name exists and that is the only thing up for discussion in an Afd. Forks of this type are quite reasonable, and defined in WP:FICTION. Again, as some people are confused here, I am talking about the existence of the article and the fact that it is not a redirect. If you don't like the content, please fix it yourself in a civil manner. -Verdatum (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with everyone above, you don't delete an article to clean it up except in BLP conditions. Lawrence Cohen 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
again has anyone shown that this page can be cleaned up to meet WP:Plot, if there are no sources for real world context, and no secondary sources how can this be cleaned up? Ridernyc (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply In terms of the question of whether the article should be kept or deleted, I can. Please read WP:PROBLEM. -Verdatum (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to Ridernyc) Will you stop going on about that? Over and over you tow the same line while failing to realize the simple fact that people can find them. It is not required that people in the AfD do this, and your continued rehashing of the same argument will not affect the outcome. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "people can find them". In this sentence to what does "them" refer? I am not "rehashing" the same argument. The previous argument made was WP:NOEFFORT, these are two separate points. I link to it because it represents a well formed argument, achieved by general concensus of the WP community that has not yet been mentioned in this discussion, yet seems extremely applicable and seems to answer the request made. If you chooose to reject it, which you are of course welcome to do, I ask that you please read WP:ONLYESSAY. Modifying or clarifying an argument to better communicate your position is not "rehashing", it is instead the essence of a disscussion. -Verdatum (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have done edit conflict note. It was intended as a reply to Ridernyc, not you. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC, my mistake. -Verdatum (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop saying it's not your job, it's easy to do and would end the debate. And yes it is your job in an AFD debate to provide evidence. You need to support the claims you make in the debate. From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote:. Ridernyc (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridernyc, I do not see any evidence to suggest that Someguy0830 believes that this is a voting process. He and others have given justifications, but as I interpret it, you are choosing to ignore them. The way I interpret WP:PROBLEM is that the burdon of proof is on the challenger. As Lawrence Cohen says, "you don't delete an article to clean it up except in BLP conditions." Further, Looking at the article's discussion page, I see no evidence that anyone has made a signifigant effort to perform a consentual cleanup. Since you are so adamant for proof that it cannot be cleaned up, perhaps you should make a civil effort to do so. If you succeed, your efforts will be appreciated. If you fail in such a way that shows that cleanup is impossible, then you have some proof, and if you succeed and the result is an article that is a tiny fraction of it's original size, then you'd probably get a lot more support for a merge/delete proposal. As for those who say keep, I assume we are fine with the article as is for now and will make an effort to clean up the article as our priorities allow. -Verdatum (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, unless it is pointed out to the people in the wiki-project that the article needs to be fixed to meet Encyclopedia standards, nothing is going to be done about it. Also, if this does end keep with clean-up needed, pleases don't renominate it in a month, cause currently, we are working on merging the episode articles into seasons and have the holidays coming up, editing will be sparodic and focused on saving the information in 50 episode articles rather than fixxing this one. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First off, this article is about a TV Show. Therefore, you have as much sources as you could possibly need for an article about secondary characters like this one. In addition, you have a variety of websites (such as TV.com, though that is not the only one), that also would have sources that information could be referenced to in the article. Every other part of the article that needs cleaning up just needs an experienced editor to fix prose, etc. I do not see how this article could possibly not be cleaned up. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources like the show itself do not establish notability. Furthermore, WP:NOT#PLOT is policy. Second, tv.com is not a reliable source because it has no editorial oversight. Therefore, it can't be used as source. What this article would need to be cleaned up is about 70kB of secondary sources to justify 70kB kB of plot (per WP:WAF, which mentions a "balanced use of both primary and secondary sources.") If this can't be provided, the plot should definately be trimmed. If it is trimmed, it is so short that it can be merged to the main character-list. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to assume that we should have a one to one ratio for secondary sources and primary sources, and WAF states nothing of the sort. Balance is not equal, as these things do not weigh the same. Arbitrarily establishing numbers off a deliberately non-numbered proposal accomplishes nothings. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally suspect sgeureka's scenario is accurate. However, someone should take the time to trim this article in a manner that reaches concensus on the article's discussion page. Then if the content is not sufficient to justify a fork due to pagesize, propose a merge. Then perform the merge once concensus is reached that a merge should be done. Then this article can be switched to a redirect to the mergeto page. Then it would be reasonable to request a delete. But since concensus takes some time, the appropriate action at this time is to keep. -Verdatum (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be trimmed, I just disagree with the assertion of how the sources should work. In a list article, one or two for every character would be more than enough. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not so much that a one to one ratio is appropriate, but that a two-out-of-universe-sources to 70bB ratio is widely inappropriate, necessitating a major trim, probably making a merge very interesting. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that respect, I'd agree. A merge would easily be viable if the characters were cut down, both on this and the merge target. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden (Duane543 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and cleanup If most of the unnecessary information is gotten rid of, this article can be slimmed down to a much more efficent level, accomidating information about the characters without overly long plot summaries. --Piemanmoo (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arogi Ho (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Necessary for adequate description of the series. A rap on the knuckles for the nominator for pre-emptively assuring people that this is to be a combat situation, not co-operative. --Kizor (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as nonsense. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakawaki[edit]

Looks like a hoax, unless anyone can confirm the existence of this town. Google hits are not encouraging. —Caesura ^(t) 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a hoax created by a problematic user. hateless 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It definitely does not exist. --CastAStone|^(talk) 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. User has been sent to ARV for constant vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Call[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL. No sources that it will be released as a single. No evidence that the song even exists. Prod removed without explanation. 17Drew 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable evidence to indicate this will be the third single from an album that has not yet been released. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -there is absolutely no evidence that she will release this song as the third single, or if it even exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.142.248 (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pigman☿ 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of glam metal bands[edit]

There's no need for a list when Category:Glam metal groups exists. Funeral 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do you determine who is or isn't a Glam Metal band? RMHED 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Wikipedia, through reliable sources. Funeral 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has 3 red links, obviously not part of the category, but on the other hand, 3 is not that many. --Thin boy 00 @12, i.e. 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed all the red links. Funeral 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment ...Which is another reason why this list should be deleted, non notable bands are constantly being listed. Funeral 16:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content covered perfectly well by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-use a category. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Part of a series of nonsense and vandalism by Honeysuckledivine (talk · contribs). --Fang Aili ^talk 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchery[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable neologism. —Caesura ^(t) 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per no reliable sourcing, no assertion of notability and clearly a violation of the no original research policy. — Rudget _{contributions} 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Part of a series of nonsense and vandalism by Honeysuckledivine (talk · contribs). --Fang Aili ^talk 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Jeffer[edit]

Not-notable, unverifiable neologism. —Caesura ^(t) 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No signs this neologism has caught on, been widely used, or been written about. Fails WP:V as well. Fails the guideline WP:NEO Edison 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per no reliable sourcing, no assertion of notability and clearly a violation of the no original research policy. — Rudget _{contributions} 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:V, WP:NEO, and especially WP:MADEUP. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville owl emporium[edit]

Hoax Toddst1 18:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxalicious. Fails WP:V. Edison 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per hoax. Nothing verifiable in there and both citations provided aren't relevant to the claims. — Rudget _{contributions} 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and smells awfully hoaxy. Maralia (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just silly. sh ¤y 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this article is the sole Google hit for "Edwardsville Owl Emporium", which establishes non-notability if not hoax status. Skomorokh ^incite 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Note that this discussion does not override any deletion via our Biography of living persons policy. I would strongly recommend looking at the application of the WP:BLP policy in granting the subjects request to delete the article.. Mercury 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Since there was no consensus, I have taken into account BLP and the subject's wishes and the article has been deleted this morning. Mercury 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley[edit]

Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley. In the half year since the last time this article was nominated, consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination). If Angela Beesley had the same amount of notability for something that wasn't related to Wikipedia I doubt many of us would have heard about her. This isn't so much a biography as a catalog of her involvement at WMF and Wikia. As such it's basically a resume, unlikely to expand past a stub. Any meaningful content can be covered elsewhere. I ask that we respect the wishes of the person this page affects most and delete. Courtesy costs nothing. Durova^Charge! 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the above: this nomination reflects no favoritism. Half a year ago I proposed deletions for the biographies of two of Wikipedia's most prominent critics on the same basis as I offer this, and I will make the same nomination upon request for anyone who meets the same criteria. Namely, they're not famous enough to be profiled in any paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias, and they request deletion. Think of a Rolling Stone encyclopedia of rock music: we wouldn't delete Sting, but if some bass player wanted out whose career highlight was to record two songs with Sting twenty years ago, we'd be courteous.

We ask biography subjects not to edit pages about themselves. Since the consequences of the page's existence affects these individuals far more than anyone else, it's only fair to extend one courtesy in return. They may not censor, vet, or spin the content. But if they don't make much difference to the overall completeness of Wikipedia and they want out, let's be gracious and give them that out. Durova^Charge! 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

First, Durova, your implication is that she really wants out, which isn't entirely true from what she has stated publicly. Second, an encyclopedia of music would more than likely keep musicians that played on Stings albums, expecially if they played bass, since Sting is THE BASS player in his band. AMG lists all players under "credits." The players do not get to take their names off the list. They played, they are part of history. Third, if WP removes all articles of people that want them removed, then you have a case. Do you have a case for that? WP rarely allows people to vanish; especially not people with articles. Cheers, Nice (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding the accuracy of the statement, please see my comments below. I apologize if you dislike that particular example. There's a difference between something being verifiable and something that rises to enough significance that a print encyclopedia would cover it. That was the distinction I was aiming to illustrate. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re BLP and nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Wikia. RMHED 18:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sourced, asserts notability, consensus reached at other AFDs, if pushed, redirect to Wikia. — Rudget _{contributions} 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:N and WP:V per provided references. Nobody of Consequence 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see Angela requesting deletion. Bramlet Abercrombie 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The request is credible. I am in direct contact with her. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is well known she wants the article deleted. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on precident; ~~Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect to User:Angela?~~--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects from mainspace to userspace are generally disfavored. Joe 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Thank you. Then a redirect to Wikia makes sense, as per RMHED.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Angela has done a hell of a lot for this project, I think this is the least we can do to repay her, and the fact that consensus in other discussions is leaning towards this outcome. Qst 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does seem to be some notability, but Angela does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles or books so I lean towards respecting her wishes.TheRingess (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has some citations, and I'm sure more can be found. As an aside: While I respect Ms. Beesley's wishes, I feel that by her requesting her own article be deleted, and the community responding to said request will only create a questionable precedent. What if other individuals request that their article be deleted completely if they do not agree with Wikipedia? PR aside, it would cause a great deal of havoc for Admins if this was an option. I'm uncomfortable with this request, and even though it is the 7th Nom, we should not heed it. We are an encyclopedia attempting the sum of all knowledge, let us not censored ourself from within. Zidel333 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community responded to a similar request more favorably I made it on behalf of Daniel Brandt. Three precedents already exist as cited above, and arguably Ms. Beesley has done more to deserve this courtesy than any of them. Durova^Charge! 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not be setting a bad example and allowing "vanity deletions", especially by Wikia and Wikipedia employees. It is also bad to put Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination) and Wikipedia people in the same exemption category, as anti Wikipedia openness. Why does she have a blog with 10 times the personal information in it? Why isn't she, as a Wikipedia contributer herself, arguing here for deletion herself? Why doesn't she go directly to the Wikimedia Foundation and ask them to delete it? This just looks bad. Can I just cut and paste this into the 8th? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such repetition seems vexatious. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Half a year has passed, outcomes at other articles have shifted. How is this vexatious? Durova^Charge! 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is disrespectful to all the editors that took the time to comment on the previous six nominations. It seems that Ms Beesley does not actually care much about this and the material in question is likely to be preserved by other sites regardless. So you are wasting our time with a personal obsession - a typical vexatious litigant. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not direspectful it is standard practice; and nothing here is made in stone, ie it is no more disrespectful than changing someone else's edits by editing an article. And you seem not to have realisedt hat other sites will only produce a stable version and are unlikely to be as well visited as wikipedia where anyone being able to edit means the article is subject to both changes and vandalism. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor the personal obsession comment. I ~~didn't even participate~~ in the previous deletion discussions. The tone of that comment is quite disrespectful. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Slight refactor; I participated in one of the previous six discussions.[reply]

Looking back at these previous discussions, it seems that the original reason for wanting deletion was recurring vandalism. But in the last six months, there seems to have just one brief attempt at vandalism - around 16-17 June. Since then the article seems to have been fairly stable. Please explain why this matter is being raised again at this time. My impression is that it is not occasioned by a current problem but just a determination to settle an old score. Your personal history in this matter is perhaps irrelevant as you indicate that you are acting as a proxy for Ms Beesley. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP policy became a little more expansive and a handful of people at the lower end of the notability range have requested and received courtesy deletions. It doesn't have much effect on the database and it earns some goodwill. Any meaningful material on this bio could be moved elsewhere. So why not honor Ms. Beesley's wishes? Durova^Charge! 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed consensus can change; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeb Bush, Jr. (third nomination) is a case in point. RMHED (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of editors changing their mind in that case. It just seemed to be wilful persistence until a deletion result was obtained - an obvious breach of the double jeopardy principle. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In both the last afds of Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy we saw a huge shift in consensus from the previous afd of these 2 bios, there is no question but that consensus does change. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My arguments on this topic are well-known by now, and I incorporate them by reference :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with regret I feel very odd about this, this isn't the same as someone want to vanish from Wikipedia, and I know many people here have already disagreed with me on this, and wish to respect her wishes to have her article deleted, but I respect her too, I believe she is notable, asides from what is listed on her article, Ms Beesley is listed at notable name database [7] they will add just any name, mention at a government site [8] CNN Money twice [9] [10] has 31,700 Googe hits quote in Newsweek [11] the Article Wikipedia:Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio list these appearances"

June 22, 2006: Primetime Morning Show on Channel NewsAsia: Angela Beesley answered general questions about Wikipedia's growth and how vandalism is dealt with.
June 21, 2006: Asia Squawk Box on CNBC Asia with Lisa Oake - Angela Beesley discussed semi-protection and other issues.
March 29, 2005: Angela Beesley spoke about Wikipedia in relation to Knowledge Management as part of the "Nice Work" show on BBC Radio 4. [23]
November 17, 2004: Angela discusses Wikipedia on the You and Yours programme on BBC Radio 4. You can listen to it at [26] but you might need some sort of plugins."

Plus like minds all over the WikiWorld seem to agree. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] You can not un-ring a bell, I'm sorry Angela, no disrespect really, but like it or not, you're notable. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her accomplishments would seem to make her sufficiently notable as to be included. Deletion because the subject requests it is never a good thing, since it will open a potential can of worms at least in terms of nominations, if not long-running deletion debates. I understand that there is a developing precedent for things of this nature, but mark me down as one of the troglodytes who will argue against its application given a chance. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The can of worms was open a long time ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Regardless of when it was opened, there's nothing to say that it can't be closed or that people can't try to close it. It could be quite a task to put the worms back there... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And its time that those who thought it was not a good idea speak up and say so--consensus can change, and when it extends to articles like this, it may make it evident that it was a poor idea from day 1. (It can amount to censorship by the subject--write the article the way I like it, or delete it--a drastic violation of NPOV. -- I do not mean that this is the case here -- neither AB nor Durova has done any such thing nor can i imagine that either of them ever would. But something so sussceptible to abuse should not be given a foothold.) DGG (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment For the record I don't think it was deleting any bio articles that opened the can of worms, it was people objecting to having articles on themselves and people objecting to seeing these articles vandalised. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question Is it customary to delete articles because the subject of those articles request it? Would we delete an article about Warren Buffett, Bob Dylan, or Bill Clinton if one of them requested it? I'm not voting because I'm not aware of the policy, but I lean toward thinking that we shouldn't delete articles just because the subject asks us to. I could be convinced otherwise possibly. Rray (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The site has long done courtesy deletions for people at the very bottom end of the notability scale. Question is how far to take it. Last June when I nommed Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein I proposed what I called the "dead trees standard". That is, we'll extend courtesy deletions up to the point where a person gets coverage in a paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. So world leaders, notorious killers, rock stars, etc. would stay in Wikipedia no matter what. For people who aren't famous or notorious enough for an entry in any printed encyclopedia, we might as well honor their wishes if they really want out of here. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate the clarification. I think your dead trees proposal is interesting. Rray (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't one of the primary drives of Wikipedia the ability to be proactive, not reactive. I can see merit in the idea of this standard, but for it leading to always being behind the 8 ball. People who are "not yet" notable by print standards, and have an article, which they can opt to have deleted, until they become notable (by print standards), in which case the community has to both recreate work already lost, as well as try to rapidly catch up. Tis an idea you can work on, and propose, but is not policy by consensus, as a single glance at votes here (or indeed almost any AfD on a BLP) would show. I'm also personally vastly opposed to 'courtesy deletes' being 'offered'. Achromatic (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the half year since I began doing this I have made exactly five nominations on this basis. This is quite rare and has a negligible effect on the site's workload. Compare that to the two years of strife that occurred while we had a Daniel Brandt biography and he didn't want it. We earn goodwill this way, with virtually no downside. I have no objection to merging significant content elsewhere. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not clear to me that the "dead tree" standard provides a clear boundary. I consider the various Marquis Who's Who to be a series of specialized encyclopedia. Its entries tend to run about the same size as a small Wikipedia entry. What if Angela showed up in their "Who's Who of American Women"? Would that count as a dead tree? I also point out that, among the people listed in Category:Wikipedia people, Angela has been translated into several other languages. Only Jimbo, Larry and Anthere have been translated into more languages.--Laughitup2 (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Wikia or whatever. -R. fiend (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See no reason not to, enough notability and citations, plus it survived six previous votes. This will set a bad precedent for those that want their article deleted.Heavytundra (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: this account has only 22 edits. Durova^Charge! 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What does it matter how many edits I have? I've been around for a bit, and could easily have over a 100 or more edits if I setup a bot to do nothing but revert recent changes. But I have better things to do with my time. Heavytundra (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't understand the reasoning for pointing out the number of edits the user had either. Maybe Durova could explain what that meant for both of us? Thanks. Rray (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes the closing admin discounts input from participants with very low edit counts. That's entirely at the that person's discretion. Durova^Charge! 19:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your reply. I was unaware of that. Rray (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not one jot how mant edits s/he has. We all have to start somewhere. This is the encyclopedia all are welcome to edit. No matter what Durova suspects or feels. Giano (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I am extending exactly the same courtesy to Angela Beesley that I extended to Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin. The community agreed on all three previous occasions. I have no wish to renew any dispute or grievance with Giano, or with any other editor. I ask only that this proposed deletion be weighed fairly on its own merits, and closed according to precedent, without reference to unrelated issues. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration" this alone makes her notable. Deleting this page would be setting an unwise precedent. The project cannot be seen to favour its own in these matters, otherwise who next will want to be deleted? We already have articles on women who have achieved far less in their lives. Notability has its advantages, if some people feel one of the disadvantages is having a page here then so be it. The page though does need to be expanded. Giano (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I went through a similar process of reasoning about the irony involved. I eventually decided that in terms of failure-modes, playing favoritism to Wikipedia insiders was a loser's game. I don't mean this as a reference to, err, recent events, but the, umm, unfortunate incident does show that problem. Here, requiring an insider to have a bio so that they feel the pain of everyone else is not going to work well, since they're always going to have the support so the pain is never more than minor. Sure, they may be irritated, but it's not going to hurt them like it will others. Jimmy Wales's unhappiness with not completely getting his way in his bio on the issue of denying "co-founder" status to Larry Sanger is a case in point. Jimbo didn't get absolutely everything he wanted, but I'd say he got WP:OWN there to an extent far, far, greater than would be granted to any outsider. So, on the balance, I'd say that a generous opt-out policy reduces pain to outsiders far more than it gives an undue advantage to insiders -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to Seth's comment (and with reference to what Giano infers below), there's no particular insider angle here. If it comes to my attention that someone wants their biography article deleted from Wikipedia, and that person doesn't seem notable enough to have been covered in any paper-and-ink encyclopedia, then I ask that person if they'd like me to nominate the page for deletion. These conversations are rare. Far more people want to get profiled on Wikipedia than want off of it. Yet I always offer these nominations according to the same criteria. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: Giano is involved in a high profile dispute with me and this is his only AFD vote in his last 500 edits. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Durova. This just goes to show then how important I regard this matter. I was rather under the impression the dispute was over. Never the less, I am surprised you are still mentioning your obviously private connections with the Wikipedia hierachy [19]. I hope they bear you in good stead. Giano (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I would imagine most of my last 500 edits have been in dealing with your lamentable behaviour. Giano (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it Durova, Angela seems very proud of her acheivements, why fon't you expand the page here is a start [20]. Giano (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. <sarcasm>I believe this article has been nominated for deletion before.</sarcasm> I wonder what has changed? If this is a delete-by-attrition, it's way too early for that, we need at least wait until the 15th nomination, or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nom. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, for reasons explicated above. What is this, "Keep AfDing until it finally gets through"? Achromatic (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Durova please WP:AGF. Giano is not so petty as to be here due to malice towards you and I suspect you are not so important to him as that. The issue is pretty much over is it not, having gone through Arbcom, also has he not stuck to discussing this AfD, rather than attacking you or anything like that, before you implied some other motive?Merkinsmum 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if there is any appearance of bad faith in my comments. None has been intended. Durova^Charge! 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia seems to be incapable of writing neutral articles about these sorts of subjects. Let some other website handle it. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - note to closing admin - this is probably my only AFD vote in the last 500 edits. Anthony (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what is not neutral here? Is there a disputed fact? Giano (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable, and the article has survived several AfDs already.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - note to closing admin - I have voted in lots of AFDs.--Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Per Sirex98. The notability is demonstrated. Unless notability standards change, I can't see why we would delete. Beasely is not borderline notable: A whole lot of sources can be found right here. Lawrence Cohen 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete and redirect per a below clarification from Durova. I still think Angela is notable, but offering living people the chance to opt out if they aren't bulletproof notable, and they ask, probably doesn't hurt. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. Per WP:CBLANK, blanking is done for deletion discussions when they have the potentional to do harm. I see this as the criteria for deletion of this article as well. Could the subject (or the subjects proxy) explain how this article will potentially cause her harm? I actually see the article as quite positive to the subject. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reasons people want their biographies removed are often quite personal. It doesn't seem right to demand of them that they explain those reasons in public (and in a permanent record) to the satisfaction of strangers. The aim here is to recover some dignity and privacy, not to lose more of it. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The use of the phrase 'dignity' here is an appeal to emotion, NPOV if you will. I fail to see anything "undignified" in her page, and one would hope, through the use of appropriate editorial discretion, that any content that made it to her, or indeed any, page, would be as dignified as warranted by its content. As for privacy, I'm not sure how a biography that details no more about her than do pages offering her bio of her own volition invades her privacy? Achromatic (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I respect her wishes, she's notable. Also, these follow up notes to the closing admin are getting tiresome. Yonatan ^talk 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if she would like to have it deleted. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. It is most [[Ironic]]when the wiki methodology backfires on its promoters. --arkalochori ^|talk| 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) This user has been blocked by a checkuser for abusing multiple accounts. Sarah 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Interviews and founding of Wikia is what pushes it for me towards retaining this, if not for at least a possible future merger somewhere else. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SlimVirgin and User:Durova. Ripberger (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Wikia. Or, she can do like the rest of the famous people and ask wikiholics on OTRS to delete her article, since she is a BLP. OTRS TICKET: #1239912092007 Miranda 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For that ticket to exist it would have had to have been created in the year 1239 on the 91st day of the 20th month, at 92:07:7* and be in a non-existant queue :) Daniel 10:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, OTRS Cabal. Whatever. Miranda 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Merge~~ and redirect to Wikia ~~per nom~~ per arguments below this one. No offense to Angela, but there's no notability per WP:BIO outside Wikia, so might as well either delete or merge the article to Wikia and leave a redirect. Giano and others' behavior here is disconcerting, as well. --Core desat 08:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is disconcerting, we are talking about a woman who feels she is sufficiently notable and of interest to the public to put up her own biographical details, complete with photographs on the internet. [21] [22] So we are not talking about someone wanting privacy or being fearful of others knowing what she looks like. Which I could understand. However, the difference between the biography here and the biographical details that Angela herself publishes is, in theory at least, she has less control over the content of the bio here. If a deletion here is permitted where will this precedent take us? Giano (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to comments directed at the nominator. But moving past that, someone starting a personal website about themselves doesn't make them meet any notability guideline (otherwise we would be flooded with useless bios of every single person who owns a website); the website's not a reliable source by the definition given in policy and guidelines. It seems counter-intuitive, but that's pretty much what it says. --Core desat 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me on this one, I would prefer not to direct any comment ever to the nominator but one does have to answer her, as she seems everpresent in Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, at any rate I reread my last statement and it makes little sense, so I changed to merge (not delete). --Core desat 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - simply is notable. Her wishful thinking or position doesn't make the fact otherwise. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, clearly passes notability criteria. Red rocket boy 10:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Delete, I'm convinced by arguments on here and my talk page. Red rocket boy 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since she (a) wants it deleted (I think she opened a previous AfD) and (b) isn't so notable that the absence of her article would make us lose credibility as an encyclopaedia. ElinorD (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Angela wants it deleted herself, then we must uphold her request and delete or rather (#REDIRECT Wikia) it to Wikia....makes more sense...--Comet styles 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cometstyles. --Roosa (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ElinorD . She doesn't want this - we don't need this - so why be nasty.--Doc^g 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask, what if George W. Bush or Mariah Carey wanted their article deleted? Would you vote delete then, so as to not be nasty too? Thanks. Red rocket boy 12:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can't differentiate between Beesley and Bush, I can't help you? (but see Reductio ad absurdum and Straw man)--Doc^g 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course I can tell the diffference :) I just think that Beesley seems pretty notable, and the line we draw where we allow the subject of the article to decide their inclusion is very blurred. But I really am interested in how you'd vote in such a discussion. Cheers. Red rocket boy 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the case of bios and notability all lines are blurred and subjective. Notability is inherently subjective. Where would I draw the line? Well, somewhere beyond Beesley and before Bush - that's not a hard call.--Doc^g 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't have made any of the earlier nominations unless I had a firm dividing line for how far to take this. My proposal was the "dead trees standard", which means we'll extend courtesy deletions upon request to living people who aren't notable enough to be in any paper and ink encyclopedia, including specialty encyclopedias. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete non-notable person. How simple is that? So she works for Wikia. That does not make her notable. She wrote a book. That does not make her notable. That's it. Still not sure why we ever had this article in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: she co-founded Wikia. Red rocket boy 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you ask, it was created by User:Johann B Kerner, who created it on 1st April 2005, made four more edits and promptly disappeared... Red rocket boy 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to woeful lack of non-trivial indepednent sources primarily about this person. With every passing month, more and more publications completely fail to talk about her. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had to think about this because a couple of months ago I used this article myself when handling a media request for someone to do a segment about Wikipedia for an Australian morning television program.I found the article handy but (no offense, Angela)I think Angela falls in the wishywashy land between truly notable and truly not notable and in such cases I prefer to defer to the subject's wishes as far as possible. So if Angela would prefer it deleted, then certainly I think we should abide by that and delete it. Sarah 13:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable enough. The fulfilling of a request is not a given, as you remain at the mercy of the cabal, so we determine whether someone are notable, not the person on the bio in question (otherwise, why are we voting here at the moment) And a suggestion: requests for removals of bios should not be a community decision, but fulfilled without discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Angela Beesley is a co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia.[1] Involved in Wikipedia since 2003, Beesley was elected to the Board of Trustees of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation in 2004, and re-elected in 2005. During this time, she was active in editing content and setting policy, such as privacy policy, within the Foundation.[2] She resigned from the board in July 2006.[3] Beesley has contrasted her work with wikis to her earlier work with the Open Directory Project, which she found to be much more closed and hierarchical.[4] Since February 21, 2006, she has been a member of the Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation.[5] She also chairs the Foundation's Advisory Board.[6] In October 2004, Beesley founded a for-profit Wiki hosting service with Jimmy Wales called Wikia. She sits on the advisory board of the media archive Ourmedia and is a co-author of the book Wikis: Tools for Information Work and Collaboration.[7]

does not belong at Wikia and would have the appearance of Durova and others yet again trying to hide something. Do what is best for Wikipedia and don't add yet another incident for our critics to take to the newspapers. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please set those considerations aside. I link to the nominations of Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt that I proposed on the same basis. Mr. Finkelstein himself has come to this discussion to support the nomination. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how "our critics" never want to "take it to the newspaper" when we argue about biographies of fat kids who get made fun of on Youtube. It is rarely possible to write an encyclopedia-quality biographical article that respects NPOV and Undue Weight about people who are notable for a single event. Thatcher131 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because notable, not in the borderline notability bracket, who are the only ones who should have the ability to get their own article removed. There should also not be the appearance of favouritism/special treatment if someone knows or requests something of a clique on wikipedia.Merkinsmum 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is neither favoritism nor the appearance of it. As stated in the nomination, I proposed courtesy deletions for both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein on the same basis as this discussion. Both are prominent critics of Wikipedia. The WP:BLP policy had loosened a bit to allow room for that. On both instances I used a "dead trees standard", which means if someone isn't famous enough to be in any print encyclopedia then we'll extend this courtesy upon request. So politicians, rock stars, serial killers, etc. are probably all covered in specialty encyclopedias and don't get this courtesy. Anyone else does, and my nominations have been rigidly consistent with that principle. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, it is not your place to make and define policy. this is an encyclopedia not a trade directory that people choose to be in or out of. We are supposed to be building the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever, that cannot be achieved if people who are considered to be notable can elect to be in or out - do you imagine Howard Hughes would have chosen to be here? Angela is notable wether she likes it or not. She is not a recluse. She is not afraid of posting her own details and images to the internet. There are no grounds for deletion whatsoever. Giano (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Delete. Stubby unencyclopedic cruft like this is what is taking down Wikipedia's quality. I'm saying it again: just because there's references about someone does NOT make them inherently notable. If we are going to start writing stubs on every Wikimedian who's been in the news, then you might as well do me next. Here's some sources, am I notable? No. Neither is Angela. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been on the Wikimedia Board? Have you co-founded Wikia? No. But Angela has. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are encyclopedic things? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to warrant inclusion.--MONGO (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still consider the two examples Durova cites notable enough for inclusion, but they were deleted for reasons other than notability -- which I won't go into here. Sorry, Angela. -- llywrch (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just don't see a full, comprehensive biography ever taking shape here, not enough sourcing. If she's somewhat notable in conjunction with Wikia, easy enough—mention her briefly in the Wikia article, and that's that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote Keep with regret as I was lead to believe that this was something she knew about and wished to happen, due to this statement "Nominating for courtesy deletion or redirect per a request from Angela Beesley." by the nominator, this statement by Angela from her talk page since removed by her may suggest otherwise.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Angela: "Thanks for pointing it out. I didn't know it was there, and it's incorrect for that page to claim the nom was "per my request". Angela. 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)" So did she in fact request this deletion, or did she not? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full sequence of events. I had been conversing with a student who's writing a thesis about Wikipedia when the subject of Angela Beesley's biography came up. So I sent a follow-up query to Angela. She and I had communicated briefly last June and back then she had expressed that she'd rather the biography come down than stay up, but had said no thanks to the idea of a deletion nomination. Someone else had nominated her biography for deletion not long after I discussed it with her. Since then nearly six months had passed and three biographies had all come down per nominations I had made. So I contacted Angela again and asked if she'd like me to try for this again. She gave the go-ahead, which I understood to be a request. Around the time she made that post she contacted me to clarify that I'd stated her wishes a little too strongly. I offered to refactor in any way she wanted, but she decided to let the nomination stand because she thought it would have a better chance of success this way. I apologized for the misunderstanding and abided by her decision. Durova^Charge! 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm revising to delete. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As her agent for the deletion process, are you making her aware of the debate and what a bad image it is creating for her? She is coming across as being in the same ilk as Brandt. She now has the appearance of being an opponent of Wikipedia openness. As a contributor she should let he own voice be heard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the value judgements you infer. This nomination is based upon an objective standard. Ms. Beesley is welcome to comment here if she wishes, and did inform me of her one misgiving. I would do this for anyone who met the same standard and confirmed with me that they wanted it. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gives the appearance that she is using private communications to arrange for the deletion of her biography by others. This is the type of behavior that made Microsoft look bad, and it looks even worse when Wikia people are doing a similar thing. I am assuming that her not speaking up, is a tacit admission that she is arranging with others to use the AFD process to eliminate her own biography. Which is odd, since she has a blog with even more information in it. Or is this an elaborate prank, so that supporters of Brandt can point to the hypocrisy? I don't know, but either way it looks bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I approached Ms. Beesley on both occasions, although the first one came by a proxy referral that originated with Daniel Brandt. Microsoft offered to pay a blogger to alter an article. I receive no compensation. Furthermore, this is one of five deletion noms that I have done on the same grounds and in the same manner. It would take a real stretch of the imagination to construe impropriety out of that. One can't guard completely against off-the-wall theories, so I'll just have to point to WP:AGF regarding my conduct and hers. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator appears to have been in error on this one: Angela herself (at [23]) states that she did not request this. Therefore, the principle which Durova suggests (courtesy deletion for a not-terribly-notable subject who requests it) does not apply. In addition, I think that Angela is notable. Therefore, I say keep: and ~~have to point out that I wonder if the nominator deliberately mislead us.~~ - Philippe | Talk 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - I struck through my previous comment because I'm convinced the nominator did not purposely mislead us. - Philippe | Talk 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable, as shown by the failure to establish additional grounds for notability after previous deletion debates. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her reasonable request for deletion should be respected. BCST2001 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Angela is a long standing experienced wikipedian and she tells us that she does not believe she is notable enough for an article. I think she is right. In any event her notability is marginal so we should respect her wishes. --Bduke (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the above which I had an edit conflict with, Angela has consistently said she does want an article. Whether she knew about this AfD does not matter. --Bduke (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you meant to write doesn't want an article? :) Red rocket boy 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Thanks. There is so much edit conflict here, I did not read it before saving.--Bduke (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable; to the extent that Jimmy Wales is notable. A courtesy for her would be to keep the article polite, accurate, and Nice (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked as sock This is a Secret ^account 02:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we redirect to Irony? Either way Brandt and his followers get more fodder to criticize Wikipedia in the WikiTruth wiki. Maybe this was an elaborate trap to make Wikipedia look bad and to give Wikitruth more to write about. The same person nominated the Brandt deletion and this one, and each time Wikitruth gets more to write about. Can we close this debate and start on number 8? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sites don't determine our editorial decisions. Durova^Charge! 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment to the comment above. What I see is basically a benign article that passes the notibility criteria and shows the subject in a positive light and for some reason that most of us don't know the subject wants it deleted. I've been reading through the deletion discussion of Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein, and Mr Finkelstein mentioned that he wanted his article deleted because it was an attractive nuisance. Could this also be the reason why Ms. Beesley wants her article deleted? If this is the case then I think it looks bad for wikipedia because it looks like one of the high ups doesn't have faith in the wikipedia model (at least for BLP articles). To use an analogy, it looks like the CEO for McDonalds refusing to eat at there because it's unhealthy food. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I appreciate the concern, I don't think anything bad is likely to materialize. If Mr. Brandt objects I suppose we could do a reversal and restore his article also. That's called consistency. :) Durova^Charge! 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, she is notable, and remains in the public eye because of her public speaking. Speeches by and interviews with her show up in things like Harvard Business School case studies (here), publications of the Association for Computing Machinery (here), apologizing for vandalism to the press two weeks ago here. These are three recent examples, all more recent than the last time (AFD#3) I opined that she is notable. Because of her association with so many wikis, filtering out the reliable sources from the unreliable ones remains difficult. But she is clearly notable, and notability is permanant. Once notable, always notable. (Though the usual frictions of history - fires, invasions, record decay, etc... destroys the proof that we as an encyclopedia need over the span of centuries.) Second, the subject here did not request that the page be nominated for deletion; she explictly says that claim is incorrect. Third, it is in Wikipedia's best interest not to even be seen as deleting an article on one of its former leaders at the request of that leader. The potential reputational damage to Wikipedia is too big. If we could do it on the basis of non-notability that would be one thing - but we can't do so honestly. So keep is both the outcome that accords with policy and guidelines and is the one that is best for Wikipedia. GRBerry 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Part of the problem is that your finding great references, but not adding them to the article. Your only doing half the work. If the article was better referenced, perhaps the cycles of deletions would stop. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't believe it unless she requests it publicly. This is on it's 7th nomination, why persist? --Charitwo ^talk 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have requested it publicly. See the previous nominations. Angela . 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus has moved toward deletion/redirect upon request for not-very-notable BLP subjects. How do you define consensus? A few Wikipedians with clout don't speak for everyone. The last Daniel Brandt AFD remains controversial. The last Finkelstein AFD had about 18 keep arguments. ~~Fishkin was snowballed after five comments, none of which provided evidence that the participants looked for sources.~~ There is no consensus for deletion by demand. Zagalejo^^^ 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I define consensus as the net result of three or four previous discussions in the past half year (depending on whether you include the Bush example). Those all ended in deletion or merge/redirects. I also define consensus in terms of the WP:BLP policy change, which was something where I had no involvement. BTW I believe the Rand Fishkin discussion ran the full five days and didn't get a snowball closure. It was simply a near-unanimous decision. Durova^Charge! 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll take back what I said about the Fishkin discussion. It seemed like it was a snowball closure, because all the comments occurred within a short time span, but it was indeed open for five days. Sorry about that.
  - I still disagree that the Brandt and Finkelstein dicussions reached a true consensus, though. The Brandt decision, anyway, went to DRV, and at least one prominenent editor left because of it. And it's a bit bold to assume that the 14th Brandt AFD was the one we magically got right.
  - I don't like to be confrontational, but it just bugs me when people suggest that the whole community is OK with courtesy deletions. No - only part of the community tolerates these decisions. Zagalejo^^^ 04:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, well written, I don't see the downside to having it.Heathcliff (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Sirex and 'co-founder and vice president for community relations of Wikia.' -Dureo (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and note to closer, this is probably my first AFD in a while, sorry inconsistant and all, though I think that SEO guy I voted for last time was pretty notable too. -Dureo (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my earlier comment I meant only to suggest that a particular individual's participation may have been influenced by an unrelated conflict he had with me. I have no grievance with you. Best regards. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dekeep - I concur that the British woman in question is not notable, but neither are thousands of other topics of interest on this website. If these equally silly pages are removed, this one should go as well. If they stay, this stays. A general trend is that if a website is considered notable by Wikipedia's unpolls, spin-off articles are acceptable. At the end of the day there are just too many references to the Internet on this website. One might argue that this is acceptable, since the aforementioned self-proclaimed encyclopedia is located on the Internet, this however is a misnomer. Either take all the trash out or don't take it out at all: Don't pick through the recycling for the particular piece of rubbish you are fond of. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with deleting an article just because the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. That seems to be a dangerous precedent to set and a slippery slope. A subject is either notable and warrants an article, or not, but the subject's preference for having an article or having an article deleted shouldn't play into it. Rray (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Elonkaesque vanity page. Mindraker (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durova and BLP. Eusebeus (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's time for Wikipedia to grow up and get past the ridiculous point where it takes 14 nominations to finally get rid of an article about a person of questionable notability who doesn't particularly want an article. Brandt's article should have been deleted long before it actually was. Here is our chance to get it right with this individual in half the number of nominations.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Questionable notability might be an issue, but why should whether or not the person wants an article play into it at all? Rray (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one is more deeply affected by the existence of a Wikipedia biography than its living subject. Also because - as the long Daniel Brandt debacle showed - it's a waste of everyone's time to stand on rigid principle in these borderline cases. Wikipedia and the public haven't lost much by making Seth Finkelstein a redlink, Seth's happier, and site volunteers have more time on their hands for other productive endeavors. I think the question should be, why should we not delete or merge/redirect if Ms. Beesley wants it? Any encyclopedic content could go into other articles. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not delete the article just because Ms. Beesley wants it unless we're willing to delete any article whose subject requests deletion. I gave your "dead trees" guideline idea some thought before expressing an opinion here. But I think it's too subjective, and it seems like a rationale for helping someone out with a preference, which IMO is a weak rationale. We would presumably refuse to delete the Warren Buffett or Stephen King articles if they requested it. So we shouldn't delete any article just because the subject requests it. The Wikipedia already has a lower standard of notability than a paper encyclopedia. I might favor an increase in the notability standard, but just deleting an article because the subject requests it just seems silly. And I don't see how having an article written about you is going to "deeply affect" you. Even if it does, what if it "deeply affects" Bill Clinton? The rationale should be applied to everyone if it's applied at all. Rray (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put some very hard thought into the matter before deciding on the "dead trees standard" for precisely the reasons you articulate. It would be hard to write an encyclopedia of horror literature without an entry for Stephen King, for example. At some point of notability people are actual public figures who have press agents of their own to handle potential problems. Roughly that corresponds to where a specialty encyclopedia of XYZ starts to cover them. At any rate, it's the kind of standard that people could actually go to a library and check and cite to settle a debate. If you have a better idea then by all means present it. This was the best I could do. Durova^Charge! 23:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did put hard thought into it, and I mean no disrespect by disagreeing with you. I think a better idea is if they meet our notability criteria, then we don't delete their article based on their request. If that's not acceptable, we should revise our notability criteria. Having two notability criteria so that we can justify deleting articles as a courtesy to their subject seems unfair to the people who meet the proposed dead trees criteria. Rray (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather restore Daniel Brandt's biography, with all the conflict that carried? If we follow your reasoning then we'd have to to the same thing for everybody, not just people with Foundation ties. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with the debate there, but I think he's certainly notable enough to warrant his own article here. Was there something different about his situation? (Besides him not being associated with the Foundation?) Rray (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the link for Brandt's AfD discussion, but it looks like the actual discussion has been blanked. Based on the reasons cited, then yeah, I would say restore his article. Rray (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanked but not deleted.[24] See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. I believe there was an earlier arbitration also, but I really wasn't involved in any of the first 13 deletion nominations or the surrounding drama. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the link, but I don't think the amount of drama caused by someone ought to be a criterion for deletion either. Someone's either notable enough for inclusion, or they're not. Having two standards just to do a favor for someone seems wrong to me, although I'm sure it's well-intentioned. But frankly, I think the Daniel Brandt article should have been kept too. Rray (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been just for one person I wouldn't do this. Actually there's been a small but steady trickle. I respect your disagreement, though. Cheers. Durova^Charge! 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm sure we'll probably eventually just agree to disagree, but why would we do something for a "trickle" of people if we wouldn't do it for one person? Please understand my intention is not to mock; I'm honestly curious about why you think that. Rray (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no sense in having a guideline we won't consistently apply. If courtesy deletions become a trend, we might as well delete everything that doesn't meet the dead trees standard - including several FAs. Better to be consistent than to purposely introduce random gaps in our coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 04:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with the intersection of the WP:V policy and the WP:BLP policy. No encyclopedia has ever been so large before that it's really gotten into this question. Used to be, encyclopedias didn't cover living people at all. Then the constraints of print publishing and paid writing kept their coverage at a level where only very famous people were included. We're embarking on new territory with these discussions. And I'm not sure merge/redirect would introduce random gaps in coverage, if you think deletion goes too far. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might say the former limits were paper-based whereas the current limits are more BLP based, there is an argument that we should lower notability threshold but allow people to opt-out when they do not meet a far higher level of notability (to which Angela isn't even close), ie its people's desire not to be included that is the new limit, or at least ought to be. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passes the criteria of WP:BIO but there are degrees of notability and this doesn't rank very highly. If the subject wants it deleted then their wishes should be expected. A redirect to Wikia would also be a good idea. Hut 8.5 16:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Wikia. I was sitting on the fence waiting for Angela to directly make a statement in this nomination and she just did. Kevs (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Isotope23. She's barely notable anyway.--kingboyk (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we were to be looking at this AfD without the overlay of Angela being someone who is very well known and respected in this community, would people's opinions be different? If we were to take "just the facts" and leave the person behind, we would find: A female entrepreneur and philanthropist whose name pulls up 45K+ google-hits (only 5% of the first 500 were about another woman with the same name). A woman who has lectured around the world on wikis, Wikipedia (Alexa rating #8) and new social networking software and systems. Her own Wikia Inc has an Alexa rating of 564. There were at least 40 links to articles from widely varying sources in which she was the primary subject or interviewee. She has an article on at least 7 other language Wikipedias, and at least a dozen more on the Crawl.com series of online encyclopedias. If I was to look a random person up and find these facts, I would probably conclude that the random person was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I am not going to say either keep or delete - this isn't my battlefield - but I will note that the "bright line" at which the community is saying a person isn't notable has shifted an awful lot in the last year. Risker (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikia. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article satisfies WP:V and WP:BIO; in my opinion, subject is notable as a co-founder of Wikia. Also, multiple AFDs are silly. --Goobergunch|? 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous. Calling corruption "courtesy" doesn't make it smell right. Cleduc (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable of-wiki. Maser ^(Talk!) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikia —Moondyne 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, especially in relation to Wikipedia, and the explanations of Angela's support for this AFD don't really hold water. Discombobulator (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that Daniel Brandt is right when he says that if a subject of a BLP wants his or her article deleted that that should carry a lot of weight in the deletion consideration. Ironically, I think this is the first time I've ever seen some of my distinguished colleagues above taking a position that agrees with Brandt's position on something. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread is becoming ridiculous. Angela's role regarding Wikipedia etc. has made her notable. Angela has been more than happy to promote herself on her own websites. Wikipedia is the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever. If Wikipedia starts to delete its own on the "I don't like it! - I don't want it - give me a sweetie" spoilt child basis then we may all just as well shut up shop now and go to the pub; because we will be justly ridiculed. Lets lead by example in matters such as this. Now for heaven's sake close this thread now for the good of the encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm sick of people nominating articles for deletion simply because they don't like them. Some of my favorte articles have been deleted this way. This will destroy the encyclopedia. Get a life--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what I said above, this article has been nominated for AfD 7 times. The result is always speedy keep or no consensus. Repeatedly filing frivolous AfD is itself an act of disruption and trolling.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. I don't happen to think that a nomination by this person at this time is particularly wise. However, consensus can change - it took 15 attempts to get rid of Brandt, so this will not be the last debate on this particular article. Everyone needs to calm down here.--Doc^g 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that she is notable and the article should remain here. Man, we need some sort of double jeopardy rule... Icestorm815 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without reference to the subject's wishes. Her notability claim is as co-founder of Wikia -- that's it. (I assume the book chapter doesn't count toward that.) That level of notability falls below article requirements (see WP:BIO), and the fact that she's mentioned in the Wikia article should suffice. Biruitorul (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Note to AFD participants people have been under the impression that this is the 7th AFD for this subject but it actually is the 13th AFD. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it can't be the 13th: the naming isn't consistent so there's been at least one duplicate page created by accident (mine). You might want to check the others to see whether some of those other pages were also false starts. Apologies for the confusion; it was unintentional. Durova^Charge! 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navel gazing and love of the drama aside: change the name, location, company name and try to place such a page on WP. It will be labeled NN, vanity and I don't know what and will be vaporized in no time.

Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than relying on some cabal or going through the drama of repeated AFDs why not just raise the bar across the board for notability of BLP articles? It sounds to me like the cost benefit ratio for the less notable BLP articles is not that great. Lets just blow them all away. This will mean that some FA's and GA's might get deleted. So be it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion: this kind of high drama AfD's cannot be reasonably solved by counting votes. The decision should be made by some cabal or a committee. Even wrong decision is better than the never ending stream of vague opinions and and equally vague counteropinions. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am in general against Deleting articles for technical reasons (the bandwidth consumed in the discussion is far greater harm to the project than the existence of the article) with the exception of articles that are plainly bullshit (and non-topics or nonsensical ones) and the exception of articles on BLP. The fact is, BLPs of non-notables are inherently subject to abuse, slander, and bringing the project into disrepute, if not legal action. The questions here are (1) is this person notable, and (2) why bother deleting it if it is (rational != motivation)? The latter has been answered clearly. As to my motivation to vote, it is because the rationales offered to show (1), that she is notable, are very, very weak. As a counter-example, I offer my real-life persona: (1) made public speeches, (2) been the President of a for-profit corporation, (3) owned a domain, (4) sold products and services to the public, (5) taught at a university, (6) quoted in a major media source, (7) hosted notable persons such as Richard Stallman. Despite this, I doubt anyone would find me notable. That fact is, unless an in-print article specifically pertains to her, she is not notable. And please remember, that [shit exists] does not justify more of it. --Otheus (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any borderline notable subject should have the right to request permanent deletion of their article. ~ priyanath talk 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. chocolateboy (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this article could easily qualify for delete without the subject asking for it. Given that she has asked for it to be deleted, I think it's best for WP to do so. IronDuke 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to Wikipedia's growing popularity and presence, if this article is deleted now, it will be necessary to recreate it in the future. silsor (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is referenced and asserts notability. Comparison with Brandt is invalid. The latter is only notable through Wikipedia-related matters, particularly the intra-wikipedia matters. Comparing a stalker with a successful enterprener who receives a wide coverage in press is laughable. The article is not only non-libelous but highly (and deservingly) positive towards its subject. The article needs to be closely watched for trollish attacks but we have enough admins who police rather than write, so this should not be a problem. Wikipedia owes it to its readers to give information on the notable people of this caliber and there is no valid reason to delete. --Irpen 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the latter was notable as a student activist for SDS and as a Google critic. Seems that his career is broader based than hers. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Glover[edit]

Requesting courtesy deletion of this article per a request from Louise Glover. Although sourced, the article stands little chance of developing to featured status and it has been a chronic source of WP:BLP problems. Per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination), this is not an especially famous person and the individual who is most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it. Let's do the gracious thing and delete. Durova^Charge! 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re BLP and nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ "stands little chance of developing to featured status" is a rather high bar, and not necessarily justified, even. The problem the subject has seems to be one court conviction that was reported by the BBC News, that we devote one sentence to in our article. We can remove the tabloidy stuff, but the BBC News isn't a tabloid, it's the main news agency for the United Kingdom. What we can do is balance it. She had a hard life growing up, that has been written about in reliable sources, we can write that in out article. She prominently supports a specific charity, similarly. She has a fair amount of coverage in several different magazines and the St. Helens Star (which covers the charity, and her Malaysian travel, but also reports on the community service conviction, by the way). We may not make it to featured article, but we can make it into a reasonable article. Unlike Brandt and Finkelstein who claimed they were private, not public, persons, Glover is a professional glamour model. Appearing in the media is how she lives. That's hard to mesh with a claim of being a private person. She is also fairly successful at being a glamour model - Playboy Special Editions Model of the Year is a notable role, and not her only one. And she is just a few years into her career, she fully intends to keep appearing in international magazines, if we delete the article, people will want to recreate it almost immediately, she shows up in the media fairly regularly. Anyway, this AFD has 5 days to run. I intend to add the additional reliable sources I found to the article, and see if I can expand it into a reasonable article, and balance the one sentence about the conviction. Then, I can hopefully show up back here and change this mere Comment into a full Keep. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would Wikipedia's coverage of any significant topic be seriously hampered by one less glamor model biography? Most of the contestants from America's Next Top Model don't have their own biographies even though they've all been television personalities and (presumably) most of them are successful professionals in the same field. The longstanding problem at this article that Louise Glover has received more coverage in the unreliable tabloid press than in reliable sources, so editors who are unfamiliar with site standards keep recreating the same problems. This creates a net drain on productive volunteer time and a source of unneeded stress for Ms. Glover. WP:BLP isn't supposed to work that way. Durova^Charge! 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In other words, "I'm not interested in this field and don't know much about it, so the encyclopedia shouldn't either"? What is a "significant topic"? Wikipedia:Notability says it's one that reliable sources write about. Modeling is a topic reliable sources write about. Give me a couple of days to prove it. By the way, the contestants from America's Next Top Model are competing to reach the status that Glover has reached. She is a top model. You will notice that the winners of that show do have their own articles. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The logic that carried in all three examples cited above is that WP:V and WP:BLP intersect here, so in instances where the completeness of the encyclopedia isn't affected a biography subject's stated wish deserves some weight in the discussion. Louise Glover is no Tony Blair, after all. This discussion will last a couple of days before you and I and everyone else walks away from it, but Ms. Glover lives with the outcome. People Google her name and this page is a top return. The BLP problems cause her grief and consistently take volunteer time away from productive endeavors. Wouldn't we all be better off by doing the gracious thing? Durova^Charge! 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. 22 references. 18 independent, non-trivial, articles from 11 reliable sources focusing on her. Playboy Model of the Year really is the top of the glamour model field, being the first Briton to achieve it doesn't hurt either. She is non-negligible as a beauty queen either, having won Miss Great Britain candidate for Miss Earth, and Miss Hawaiian Tropic UK, besides her many lesser titles. She is on the cover of dozens of top-shelf magazines in a dozen different countries, and has every intention of continuing to be on more covers.[25] [26] Highly notable. And a fairly interesting story, if I do say so myself. Is it a featured article? No. But it's nothing to sneer at either. Changing to Keep. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there will certainly be a lot of people demanding an article on her if she does eventually becomes a WWE wrestler. Epbr123 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact I can't think of any good reason to keep. RMHED 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it has been rewritten and is no longer trivia strewn and sensationalist. RMHED (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to delete and articles aren't required to be deleted if they can't become FAs. Article is referenced with good sources, although some of them need to be changed to inline citations. Satisfied WP:N and WP:V. Nobody of Consequence 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I could accept the argument that one less article about a glamour model is no big deal if the same logic was also applied to, let's say, classes of steam locomotives. But it isn't. Glover seems to pass the notability test, so I'm in favour of keeping the article, on the basis that AnonEMouse adds a little bit more balance to the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. I added a dozen good sources and removed some of the unsourced stuff she complained about yesterday. She has actually gotten significant coverage from quite a few newspapers, and while the St Helens Star is just a local paper, the Liverpool Echo seems to be the second most-widely read evening newspaper in the country. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I had to think about this one somewhat, since I do believe there is some threshhold. But, in terms of I-know-it-when-I-see-it, this isn't it. There's a lot of potential for mischief here, and very little "public interest" factor -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An bad application of a bad principle. Subjects ought not have control of what is written about them here, or in any reputable information source. In this case the reason for preferring deletion is obvious--there is well sourced notable negative content that clearly passes BLP. So the subject says, in effect, if the article has such content I don't want one at all--I cannot imagine she would object to it otherwise.. Nobody should ever have such right--it amounts to giving them censorship over the contents of a an article. It amounts to the abandonment of a foundational principle. if we do not have allegiance to NPOV, why are we here? DGG (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup by AnonEMouse. Epbr123 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the massive cleanup effort and referencing done by AnonEMouse. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand this repeated appeal to "doing the gracious thing". Is there a WP:GRACIOUS that anyone can point me to? The point made earlier about censorship, no matter how "graciously" it might be done is surely the important one here. This either an encyclopedia or it's not. The issue is quite simply whether the subject is notable, and whether the article conforms to WP:BIO. The answer to both questions since the recent work put into it has to be yes, and so it should not be censored. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO changed last summer to allow more scope for this kind of nomination. Several biographies have received courtesy deletions or redirects as a result. This is a very uncommon request, but granting it has been becoming the norm. The deletion discussions linked in the nomination shed some light on that, I hope. Durova^Charge! 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a policy that allows for the possibility of censorship and actually carrying out the censorship allowed for are two different things. What may happened before does not shed light on what should happen now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. How is this nomination different from the three successful examples cited above? I defined the scope of the proposal very carefully in order to avoid the potential for misuse as a censorship wedge issue. Your concerns are valid and I think they've been addressed adequately. If more is needed I'll gladly respond. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that bad cases make bad law. The fact that articles have been "graciously" deleted in the past has no bearing on this article, where notability has been more than adequately demonstrated by the work that AnonEMouse has carried out. The article now gives a balanced view of a notable, public person. To delete it on the basis that the subject doesn't like it can only be considered to be censorship IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your view in terms of the "dead trees standard" I proposed in the previous nominations? Namely, if the person isn't notable enough to be covered in a paper-and-ink encyclopedia (at least a specialty one), then courtesy deletion upon request is a fair thing to do because the impact on the individual outweighs the impact on Wikipedia? That seemed like a good way to avoid the slippery slope. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is very simple. Wikipedia is not printed on dead trees, and so the restrictions that paper-and-ink encyclopedias have do not apply. The slippery slope is that what claims to be an encyclopedia has started to delete material because it makes the subject of an article unhappy. That slippery slope leads to censorship. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable enough to warrant an article. Eusebeus (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Insufficient reason for deletion. We shouldn't delete articles as a courtesy to the subject unless we're willing to do that for any subject. (And if we do that for any subject, then our credibility as an encyclopedia would erode quickly.) I don't think that an article's chances of ever reaching featured status have anything to do with whether or not an article should be deleted either. Rray (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of Malleus Fatuorum above. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to StarCraft (series). Pastordavid (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Revelations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Concerns raised at previous nomination have not been met (or even attempted, the only two edits to the article in the months since the previous nomination are category tweaks), the sources provided in the previous discussion do not provide sufficient coverage in order to properly construct a full article. I feel it is notable enough to be covered briefly somewhere else, such as StarCraft or StarCraft (series) - somewhere relevant to the series - but it is not notable enough to warrant a full article. -- Sabre 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To the series article that was just created, looks worth a sentence or two at most. Judgesurreal777 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unnotable and poorly written. The Clawed One 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as has already been merged see no reason to reverse this. Davewild (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worthington University[edit]

Fictional school with no real world notability. Ejfetters 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the fake college wasn't even notable within the TV show, it just happened to be where a few characters went.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dawson's Creek as possible search term and because redirects are cheap. Nate · (chatter) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged Merged all 3 locations to Dawson's Creek. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was There is really no consensus to do anything here. The Delete arguements are just as convincing as the Keep arguements. Additionally, I find the Merge suggestion convincing. A suggested route would be to merge the article, then CSD for houskeeping once merged. But the end result of this discussion is No consensus.. Mercury 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: A Celebration[edit]

Much as it pains me to nominate any Doctor Who-related article for deletion, I just feel that this has to go. While it is vaguely notable (though it currently lists no independent sources, since the one listed was produced by the BBC who also produced the event, a one-time concert which was, basically, for nerds! can't ever grow as an article. It's currently just a list, and a fairly uninteresting one at that. The article would never really help anybody, and contains no info that can't be found easily, all in the same place, online already. Since the "concert guide" section is totally unsourced, it constitutes NOR, as far as I can tell. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the line that says, "Appearances by: Daleks" is, however, hilarious!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny little keep I just stumbled across this artical and I have to admit 'it isn't great' and holds minimal, however I think the the actual subject is notable and this artical could be made into somthing brilliant, although I don't really have the time to do it.--Wiggs 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another Children in Need segment, one of many one off sketches, numbers and performances put on to get people watching the annual British charity telethon. Totnesmartin (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, not relevant, not worthy of a separate page. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it is partially sourced and there are a large number of Google hits for it (though yes, I know that doesn't establish notability). I have cleaned up and added some stubs, though more probably needs to be done. It's a shame that editors these days go for deletion rather than encouraging articles to be improved first. Stephenb (Talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said above, I don't believe that it has any possibility for improvement. Neither do these people.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I know that's what you said, that's why I said it was a shame! These other people weren't listed (obviously) when you made the nomination. I'm not having a go at you, just expressing a personal opinion on the process of deletion of articles. Stephenb (Talk) 16:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you can source and expand it as much as you like, but it's still not notable in itself. Put it on the tardiswiki if you really want to keep it. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I said "weak keep"! You may think it isn't notable, but there's been very little to encourage people to add to it before it gets deleted, and someone may add something that makes it notable (to you or others). In my opinion, articles such as these deserve a chance as stubs and with tags before they get nominated for deletion. In addition, the nomination was partly because it was (unnecessarily) "just a list", which is why I cleaned it up, which seems a simple job to do before an admin looks at this AfD. Stephenb (Talk) 16:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There have been at least four Children in need specials related to Doctor Who, we should be able to create one article that covers all of them. This would eliminate stubs and give us a more notable article. futurehawk|talk 22:36, 07 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa Riverview[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Arizona, sources establish only local notability if any at all. Precedent has shown that strip malls are generally non notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mall is a 1.1 million square foot GLA super-regional mall, supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, a size that far exceeds anyone's definition of a "strip mall". Precedent has shown that malls of this size and regional scope are notable. Alansohn (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "reference" is a directory entry, one of the "sources" is a broken link, the other two predate construction. They are reliable, and most of the article's information is verifiable, but I don't see any notion of more than local notability. As an aside, I don't think that the definition of strip mall depends on size. Huon (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - superregionals are notable, although article expansion is encouraged Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:34, 2 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, — Scientizzle 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Superregional malls by definition have an influence far beyond their immidiate locality, and have generally been kept in previous AFDs. Such malls have generally been found to have numerous stories in regional and national press with substantial coverage, because of the effect they have on shopping patterns and commerce over an extended area. Edison 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable, if giant, evil maul. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Morgenthaler[edit]

Unelected local politician. While mentioned in coverage of the election, I don't believe she passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians. However, she might be notable for being an Army spokesperson for the Abu Ghraib fiasco.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Jagla Toddst1 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well-referenced. (I am the author of the article.) Media references to her role in the Abu Ghraib scandal can be easily added. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep that in mind.HAL is not IBM (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N per her media coverage. Epbr123 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. Toddst1 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Keep only if the Steve Jagla is kept as well. This article is tied to the Steve Jagla article. To remove the Steve Jagla with out removing the Jill Morgenthaler article would be inherently unfair, bias and doing a disservice to the readers of wikipeida. They both must be either, removed of retained, as a collective whole. This is only common sense. The credibility of wikpeida is at stake with this issue of fairnessHAL is not IBM (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. I appreciate that the author has sourced this, and applaud her/his volunteering the information of authorship. As with Steve Jagla, however, I question whether this is encyclopedic. Even if Morgenthaler wins the primary, until she's in Congress, is this much more than a campaign advertisement that's being hosted by Wikipedia? Bear in mind that if it's kept, there's nothing to stop this from going from advertisement to smear, depending on who's doing the editing. Mandsford (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced and it passes WP:N. I think it would be incorrect to redirect to the 6th CD page. An individual can be notable whether or not they win the election (see Tammy Duckworth). Morgenthaler's role as a state official would suffice even if she weren't a candidate. Propol (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? "Morgenthaler was Colonel in the United States Army, serving for nearly 30 years. She has served in Korea, Berlin, Bosnia, and Iraq; and she handled disaster recovery during the San Francisco earthquake of 1989. In 2004, she handled press duties for the Army, including addressing the Abu Ghraib scandal. [3][4] [5] She was appointed by the Illinois Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich, to serve as a homeland security adviser in Illinois." Which part of this is notable enough to merit an encylopedia article? Is every homeland security adviser entitled to a separate piece? Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' nothing notable, certainly not unles she wins he primary. Evenby the most expansive definition, merely being a political candidate is not notability.DGG (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Jill Morgenthaler in multiple reliable sources cited in Jill_Morgenthaler#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elected or not, this person meets WP:BIO and exceeds our standards for verifiability. RFerreira (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperghettoization[edit]

Seems to fail WP:NEO. Hammer1980·^talk 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Needs a lot of cleanup, but this is not something WP:MADEUP; there are dozens of Google Books and Google Scholar hits dating back as far as the 1980s. —Caesura ^(t) 17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JSTOR shows more academic hits (I'd link but the links are dynamic); this page needs cleanup; I might be able to give it some time later today to try and improve it.--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to merge with Racial segregation in the United States or something along those lines. At the very least, the term hyperghettoization seems a stretch when we have no article on ghettoization per se. The Google Scholar hits are 1000x. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Caesura. I'm surprised; I would've thought for sure that was a clearly deletable article according to WP:NEO. -Verdatum (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the term can be found on Google scholar current text fails to define it and does not explain how it is different to the traditional ghettoization. Without the few essay bits it has practically no encyclopedical contents. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Carver[edit]

Fictional character showing no sign of verifiable sources to show real-world notability Pak21 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article that is part of the WP:SOAPS project. It is among a long list of articles that we are in the process of improving. There are a lot of articles and only so many editors to work on them. Give it time, the project is fairly new and there are a lot of articles to get to. Deleting this serves no purpose. CelticGreen (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can definitely be improved and sourced better, just be a little more patient and the work will be done. Abe Carver is notable by the way, he is the longest running African American character in the history of daytime television soap operas, now all that is needed is the source, which I will be looking for. Glo145 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found one article that discusses his length of service and added it, real world notability and sourcing. I'm sure if I looked more than 5 minutes, I could find more. CelticGreen (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added an TV Guide article about the character from 2003 and it stated Reynolds was the longest running actor on soaps, and I further added a quote from Reynolds about the impact of the character. Glo145 (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question why when you look at the raw article (when editing) does it say For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page=Abe Carver|date=4 December 2007|result=keep? Has a decision been made and this discussion moot? or is something else going on?CelticGreen (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable and notability is now provided within article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all comments above. IrishLass (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a notable character within the series and the genre in general; it needs improvement, not to be deleted. In any case, the additions since the AfD was initiated clearly render this AFD pointless. — TAnthony^Talk 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed to allow improvement as requested. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Still the same abomination that tries to double as the main article for the game Henke37 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Taric25 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - There is currently an effort to clean up the article by the VG Project Cleanup department. I feel that an attempt to clean up the article should be made to see if the left over content is worth keeping. Going through the sizable content of the article and the available sources is a large undertaking. But with the article up for deletion, that doesn't allow for much time to adequately clean up. I ask for the deletion nomination to at least be put on hold. If after it has been cleaned up and it still does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, then by all means delete it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Guyinblack25. Since we have a current effort to clean up the article, then we should take time to do that. Guyinblack25 has offered to help and is admitidly not totally familiar with the subject and needs time to go through the wealth of information afforded. Thus, a deletion nomination is not currently condusive to our efforts. I echo that we should put this on hold. Taric25 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant sections (Creation and Reception) to the main article. The rest can be scrapped. TTN 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN. Taric25 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WIkipedia is NOT a game guide site. We do not need to have the locations of all the 1 up chests in the game, nor the HP refillers and so on. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, which is why I feel that a deletion process should be put on hold and time should be given to clean up the article to reduce the amount of game guide content in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - And yet, such efforts seem to have been promised at the last AfD, and we're back. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you check the edit history, you will see that efforts to clean up have already begun and much more is in the works. All I'm asking is at the very least to put the AfD on hold. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - In the last AfD, the article looked like this. That pretty much speaks for itself. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop AFD for time being - If there is a process underway to retain notable information, it should be allowed to go foreword, especially since that process was ongoing before this AFD started. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TTN above. Clearly fails WP policies. Eusebeus (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Henky37 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:TTN. Please cite specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you believe that this fails. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:VG/C efforts and WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, since the problem is surmountable. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if there is a video game wiki out there. ThuranX is correct, Wikipedia is not a game guide and it is not a place for such minute detail and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is arguing that the excessive game content should stay. The only thing being asked is for the AfD to be put on hold as it has already been expressed that efforts to remove such content are already underway. If after it's been cleaned up it still does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion then feel free to continue the AfD and remove the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I agree with Guyinblack25, because since we're currently fixing the article to get up to where it should be, we should take take the time to remove minute detail. Also, Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are essays, so please argue on the basis of policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability. Speaking of notability, guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles, per Wikipedia:Notability##Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Instead, we should focus on Wikipedoa:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and if you look on the article's talk page, we are discussing exatly just that. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop AFD for time being - per Judgesurreal. --Maniwar (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against relisting If contributors are willing to work it and either make good or perform a merge and redirect, then I see no burning need to delete this article this second. Squaresoft games have always attracted a lot of interest and that has resulted in a number of our VG featured articles being about their games, perhaps the considerable volume of cites here can contribute to another one? If the article fails to improve over time, it can always be relisted and (providing a reasonable amount of time is given) nobody can say they didn't receive fair warning. Someone another (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely up-front, I don't believe that this list of locations is any more suitable for a WP article than the countless others which have or will be deleted, is there some significant coverage of locations by secondary sources that I've missed? What does bother me is the thought of so many potentially useful cites getting deleted. It's going to take time to pick the bones out of it, but if that results in the main game article moving closer to FA status and contributors are willing to put the time in then it'll be worth it. Someone another (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and that's all we asking for: time to put our work into it, so it'll be worth it. Also, this article started out a list of locations, but it has now become a world article. After this AfD is over, we should rename it. See World of Final Fantasy VIII and Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, very game guide-ish, and the parts that aren't game guide-ish are just copies of the article for the main game. I can't even see how this would be improved Knowitall (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, nobody is arguing that the information is not game guidish nor is anybody arguing to keep that content in there in its present state. All that is being asked is more time further clean up the content to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Clean up has already begun, even before this AfD begun and progress is being made. It has also already been expressed that if the content does not meet standards after said clean up, then the AfD can continue. I also find it odd that of all the editors wanting to delete this, only one has addressed the request for more time. Is such a request that unreasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Could you please identify which sections you believe copy the main article and how? Taric25(talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concept & Creation and Reception. It seems like they're just copying the main article, and the rest of the article is still horrible.Knowitall (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have to agree with you on the "Concept and creation" section, I feel it should be pointed out that the "Concept and creation" section has yet to be cleaned up. Also I don't see how the reception for the setting is a copy of the reception of the game. One focuses on the overall reception of the game and the other focuses on the reception of the setting and graphical appearance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Stop AFD for time being. The article is already looking a lot better. The Prince (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James T Harris III[edit]

Delete nn president of nn institution Mayalld 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, reads like a news release. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Nothing else to say. 1ForTheMoney 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- university presidents are inherently notable and this one does not lack for press coverage (>1000 Google News archive hits)--A. B. ^(talk) 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most of those Ghits are not pertinent, though. If you search for "James Harris" and "Widener" or for "James T. Harris" and "Widener", you get many fewer hits and even those are not all pertinent. Harris and James are rather common names.... --Crusio 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been (vice-)president of several smaller universities/colleges. I have cleaned-up the article and tagged it for better sourcing and verification. --Crusio 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President of a university is notable, he's won several awards, and his name appears in the press. For example, he was just listed in the Philadelphia Inquirer as one of the higher paid university presidents: Kathy Boccella (November 12, 2007). "College presidents work in halls of higher earning". Philadelphia Inquirer. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) --El on ka 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elonka. that the institution is relatively unimportant would seem to make this all the more notable. But the awards must be referenced DGG (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sephius

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 as the article is a hoax.

Sephius[edit]

No Google hits for Sephius Leviticus, which suggests that this is at best a misspelling and at worst a hoax. I'm not sure which, because I don't know Bible stories. If this is a plausible misspelling for something and should be a redirect somewhere, redirect the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. —Caesura ^(t) 16:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search for "Sephius angel" give references to the Final Fantasy 7 charater model for a one-winged angel. I believe this to be a misplaced representation of Sephiroth. Padillah 16:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no Sephius in Leviticus. For that matter, there are no angels at all - it's all rules for sacrifices, and dietary and sanitary regulations. JohnCD 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. This article remains unsourced; but, given the radical changes brought about by its "stubification" during the debate, it deserves a little time to grow. Certainly, the topic is a reasonable one. Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern weapons[edit]

Article is an unsourced, difficult to maintain list of weapons with an ambiguous definition of the term. As a list it is superseded by Category:Modern weapons, and I have copied the important information into the CAT header. Burzmali 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, granted that this article as it currently stands is a little more than a list, and that the definition could be tightened some. If viewed as a list, this sort the weapons by nation of origin and separates the manufacturers from the weapons, two things that canot be done in a category. On a broader issue, if viewed as a encyclopedica topic, this could be expanded well beyond a list. Discussion could and should be made of the factors that distinguish modern weapons from those that came before, the key developments in the history of modern weapons, and crucial weapons and inventors. I note that article contains no sources, but also note that the issue has not been raised at with the editors of this article, either on the talk page or by a request for citations via template. Surely this should be done before deciding that article is unsourcable. I also note that WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (my emphasis). My reading of this crucial line is that if is possible to find sources, then the article topic is valid topic for the encyclopedia. It is not a demand that every unsourced article be deleted. Given the number of books on guns I see in bookstores, I assume that this topic can be sourced, if interested editors are given the oportunity. Dsmdgold 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category is far better. The article is currently just some modern small arms and would have to look very different to live up to its title. Colonel Warden 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an overly broad article topic. This is better covered by individual weapon-type articles, which ideally contain a history section to actually provide the necessary context for the "modern" distinction. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep Needs more of a re-write then a deletion. Esskater11 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If the article could be written as well as Technology during World War II I would agree, but this article has been around since 2003, and has never really been more than an incomplete list. Burzmali (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the problom. Just becuase its about 3 years old, why does that matter. Were offering to re-write the article. Remeber its better to save an article then just to delete it. Esskater11 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree that an article on modern weapons has a place in Wikipedia, unfortunately, this isn't that article. In almost 5 years, the article has not risen above the level of a loosely associated list of weapons that various editors have a fondness for, no evidence is presented that the weapon is a "modern weapon" and the definition posed is that any weapon built since WWII is "modern". If someone wants to recreate the article with better information, fine, but the current article isn't adding anything to the encyclopedia. Burzmali (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You should examine the page history more closely. The earliest date in the history is for a page move to List of modern weapons. That article was started under this title and the moved. The article was restarted on May 23, 2005. That makes this article less than three years old, not almost five. The article also contained substantially more text until a few monthes ago (see this diff). This article is still a candidate for expansio, not deletion. Dsmdgold (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i re wrote the article ROUGHLY. I personaly think its still better then before. Obviously my version could be added to. Heck we could even talk about the entire term in its whole. Esskater11 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub, so fix later. I've tagged it for sources etc. Perfectly notable topic, no longer a messy list full of cruft. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OneClimate[edit]

No establishment of notability. Speedy declined without explanation. here we are. Blogs do not establish notability. WP:WEB Crossmr 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; no assertion of importance. —Caesura ^(t) 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I presume speedy was denied because the subject's notability was asserted, however it is unverifiable. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the problem with the wording. Anyone can "Assert" notability. Assertion needs to come with verifiable citation in a reasonable time frame, otherwise its meaningless. Admins need to recognize this.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them do. Actually, I would have denied speedy on this one myself. I said delete and I should have said strong delete, but not speedy. Looks like it's gonna be snowballed, though. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball/Speedy as advert. --Thin boy 00 @27, i.e. 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied G11; clear COI, peacock, promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)

94.4FM Salford City Radio[edit]

Unremarkable local radio station Marwood 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a list likely to be useful for students and others doing research . Reliable sources can be found very easily, but it is up to the editors who want to keep this article to do so ASAP to avoid another AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award records[edit]

It's a bunch of odd records and facts and is ultimately non notable original research. This violates various WP policy, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are also few sources, and nothing that really proves the subjects notability. Why are these records so notable that they deserve their own page? It should not have its own page, and a small section of some of the more important records at the Academy Award page should more than suffice. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm willing to reserve judgment for the moment, because I think that there is the possibility of bringing this up to spec, but it will require that all records be notable in themselves, and definitely must be sourced to reliable publications. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this, or any, effort to delete this information and/or this article, based on the following arguments.

(1) The entries contained in this article are indeed notable, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The entries contained in this article satisfy all of these criteria.

(2) The entries contained in this article do not constitute original research, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:No original research, "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'." The entries contained in this article do not satisfy any of these criteria.

(3) The entries contained in this article do not constitute an indiscriminate collection of information, under current Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. … Wikipedia articles are not simply: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, … Plot summaries, … Lyrics databases, … Statistics, … [or] News reports". The entries contained in this article do not constitute any of these criteria prohibited by this policy.

(4) It is stipulated that the entries contained in this article require sources. Nonetheless, the fact that sources are not listed in no way indicates that sources do not exist. As such, whether or not sources exist and whether or not such sources are listed are two independent issues, separate and apart from each other. In fact, I would posit that the entries contained in this article have multiple sources, readily available. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". As such, the proper and appropriate action under current Wikipedia policy is to add the required sources, not to delete the article. Furthermore, in fact, any attempt to delete this article in and of itself violates this very policy of Wikipedia.

In conclusion, based on the arguments enumerated above, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this, or any, effort to delete this information and/or this article. Respectfully submitted, (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is OR. The guideline says "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements" and considering there is no source, it's OR. And yes it is indiscriminate information because it's just a group of records with no real criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point, silly. I will repeat it one last time: the fact that no source is listed in no way indicates that no source, in fact, exists. As such, the appropriate action per Wikipedia:Deletion policy is to improve the article (i.e., to add the sources) as opposed to delete the article. And, Doctor Obvious says: I believe that the criteria are "records" – as that term is typically taken to mean – that relate to "Academy Awards" – as that term also is typically taken to mean. Much like the section “Oldest living men” in the Wikipedia article on oldest people. I am guessing – although the article does not quite make it crystal clear – that the critera are … hmmmmmmm, let me guess now … they gotta be the oldest … they gotta be living … and they gotta be men ... I guess …? Of course, that's just a stab in the dark, but I am relatively confident that such are the criteria. .toidI. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, you are the one missing the point. Where is the line drawn for the records? What's to stop the list from including things like "Most awards for Visual effects won by an Australian", "Most awards won by a 43 year old" or something along those lines? It's just a loose definition - "records" and virtually anything under that umbrella could be added. If it was limited to a small section at the main page, this could be controlled easier. Also, some of your comments are borderline personal attacks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your proposal. A record is a record is a record. If indeed records are notable, then there is no reason to limit them. If we were to limit them, then who exactly is the one to decide which ones to include and which ones to exclude … such that we can keep the section "small"? That is, who is to say (and why?) which of the notable records are to be included and which of the notable records are to be excluded? They are all notable, so why exclude any at all? If this material is indeed notable, why does the section need to be limited to a "small" section? That’s like saying, in the above example that deals with the world's oldest living men, we believe that the topic of "oldest living men" is notable … but let's limit it to only 17 (or 43 or whatever arbitrary number), so that we can keep the list short. And if we follow your proposal of keeping the notable records to a short list, who is to decide what arbitrary number constitutes "short"? Furthermore, notable is notable is notable. Who is to decide which of the notable records are "more" notable than other "less" notable records, in determining which to remove so that the list is kept (arbitrarily) short? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There's a difference though. The list of oldest people has a set definition, and the topic is the type that really does require a list as there have been many different people who have been oldest. In this case, the core information about the general Academy Award page doesn't demand an extensive section for records. A few should be included, such as who has won the most, etc. The records for the individual awards can be mentioned on the individual pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the point you are attempting to make, I also see several problems with it. As I mentioned in the above posts: (a) who is to decide which notable records are to be included and which notable records are to be excluded? (b) why do some notable records have to be excluded at all? ... or, in other words, why does the list of notable records have to be "short"? (c) what does "short" mean and who decides that? (and, again, why?). Furthermore, all of these records fall under the umbrella of Academy Awards. That is, all of these record-holders share that common bond ... i.e., the Academy Award. As such, here is an example that refutes the feasibility of your proposal. (This is merely a single illustrative example, and one can think of many others just like it.) Now, let's say that I -- or any other Wikipedia reader -- wanted to know, say, who is the oldest living Oscar winner. According to your proposal, they would have to go to the individual page of Luise Rainer in order to find out that information. So what, pray tell, would lead the reader to go to that page at all if, in fact, the reader is attempting to ascertain who the record-holder is? That is, if I (or any Wikipedia reader) wanted to know who is the oldest living Oscar winner, why on earth would I look on Luis Rainer's main article page if indeed I did not know that Luise Rainer held that record? Clearly, one would go to the main "umbrella" page -- Academy Award records -- and see who, in fact, holds such record. Or, are you suggesting that the reader go to each and every individual page ... for each and every Academy Award winner ... and read each and every article ... to ultimately (hopefully) determine who the oldest living Oscar winner is? Is that your suggestion? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can do scenarios like that for all kinds of things. What if a reader wanted to know how many Canadians won the Oscar for best sound editing? What if someone wanted to find out how many times Barney Gumble burped in the Simpsons episode Homer's Enemy? People look for all kinds of stuff, that still doesn't make it notable. In the end, it's all rather trivial and this page is just a big collection of indisctiminate information. And in answer to point a, notability can be determined by reliable sources. Since the page has few such sources, little of it is notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having any intelligent discourse with you is simply hopeless. I officially give up. Good luck to you, buddy. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Ain't --JForget 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baint[edit]

Unsourced neologism. Article had been prodded and seconded before the article creator contested the prod. Allen3 ^talk 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. freshacconcispeaktome 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant neologism. Xymmax 14:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Merenta 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clear neologism. --Son 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Possible redirect to ain't; I remember seeing "baint" or "bain't", meaning "am not" or "is not", as a dialect form in a number of older novels, including one byJ. Sheridan Le Fanu. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Alberon 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Ain't of which it is a variant. RMHED 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Arrr. As young Smerdis yon said, bain't be nowt but an old-fangled form o' ain't. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AFD is now a month old, and there is no chance of interpreting what to do over a period that long. My suggestion is to renominate in a new afd. Honestly, there's no point in relisting more than once per AFD discussion because it just runs too long then. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agon (tokusatsu)[edit]

Does not meet WP:Notability requirements. A fictional character for four episodes, possibly COPYVIO for having the lyrics included. Failed PROD. Editor who removed PROD did not address notability, but instead said Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and not paper? Collectonian 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not paper.--Neverpitch 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT[reply]
Delete per nom. Neverpitch, please explain why the subject is notable, and why the article does not assert notability. See below Pagra shtak 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, this isn't a character article -- it's a TV show article misnamed after its title character. The fictional character notibility guidelines don't apply here. Which is not to say in its current form it adequitely satisfies the notability requirements for a show, but it needs a good-faith chance to do so under the correct guise. Keep, move to Giant Phantom Monster Agon, tag as a stub, and notify the relevant WikiProjects (Japan and TV, probably) that it needs urgent help, and give them a few months to work on it (I'd suggest six, given that sources are likely to be in Japanese). If it doesn't get sources for notability, then bring it back. —Quasirandom 00:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Giant Phantom Monster Agon, and rework into an article about the show and not the character. Pagra shtak 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Giant Phantom Monster Agon. I can't read Japanese, but the Japanese wiki has an article for what seems to be this TV series. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because it existed dosn't make it notable. Is it a notable TV mini-series? This is the key to the articles inclusion...--CastAStone|^(talk) 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of a case where a TV show was declared non-notable. It's a pretty old series, so that explains its stubbiness even in the jp wiki. But if I'm reading it right, the Japanese article was created about two years ago. If the article survived for that long on the Japanese wikipedia, I don't doubt the notability, and it probably shouldn't be deleted even though it will forever remain a stub here. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rv deprodding deprodded against WP:POINT (see top of discussion and article history). --Thin boy 00 @32, i.e. 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even an article for the television show it's from. And Japanese television characters are a dime a dozen. I see no indication that this specific character is notable. I (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move per above. Article is empty if you remove the show information. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus leaning towards Keep with the sources found by DGG. Davewild (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Office 2.0[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced Neologism. Is this original research? Appears to lack notability Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't it mean the paperless office? (or the computerized office, depending on era) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i started it as a link target: lots of things relate to it (comment above), and for this reason it seems to need a page // JohnPritchard (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article calls it a neologism and the only source in the article is a blog. --Son 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be an increasing number of sources: an annual conferences[27], a related podcast [28], an apparently unrelated article in internet News [29], and, most significantly an article in InfoWorld ""Google, Microsoft describe next-gen 'Office 2.0' " It is also being used as a trademark for a GNOME-based Mac 10.4 suite of applications [30]. I think at this point it is more than a neologism, and the Infoworld article is sufficient to support it. Not really my subject--just what I could find quickly. DGG (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Environmental disciplines[edit]

Inapprop article name, stub article, poorly written, content covered more comprehensively elsewhere -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reclassify page-from a page to a category-This should be a category and merged or liked to a bigger category as a link or similar actions should be taken. If that was not possible-deletewholesale.--Quek157 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Environmental disciplines. There is a List of environmental issues which seems to be the basis for this page. There are environmental studies and environmental science disciplines. There is already a List of environmental studies topics and environmental science disciplines are a subset of this. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire page.--Quek157 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whatever is going to be covered here, could better be covered elsewhere. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - it's within the realm of being a plausable 'search term'. Redir to List of environmental studies topics. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is not a plausible search item. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether An attempt to get an additional article for what is covered elsewhere. There is no need for a redirect. I can not imagine a long phrase like this as a search term. DGG (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge per Pearrari's suggestion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symitar[edit]

Non-notable. An orphaned article who's parent company doesn't have an article of their own. -- Latin American X-Change 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google news search brings back a number of relevant results, from reliable sources. Some of the results' headlines imply that the articles are specifically about the company, thus, appearing to meet notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge under Jack Henry Is the idea of wikipedia to be a buyer's guide of all companies, divisions of companies, and their products? This is a division of Jack Henry. This article looks like an ad for the company's products to me. Today, even one-person companies can generate multiple hits on google by issuing press releases and doing basic advertising. No company would care to be considered non-notable. Search for cutek, a tiny consulting firm about 3 years old. Any company that employs people and generates a profit is notable to someone... but I wonder where the line gets drawn. If I add a division of another company, or even another division of Jack Henry, written in the same fashion, I wager it will be tagged for rapid deletion right away as simply an ad. That's what I see here, too. The company USED to be independent. But now I don't see a reason to list them separately from Jack Henry. Symitar is not listed in the Software 500. Jack Henry is #78. I think this one goes away and we add one for Jack Henry, similar to the articles for Fiserv and Metavante in the same industry... listing Symitar as one of their divisions. Isn't this the proper approach so we don't have 100+ little Fiserv division ads in the mix?--Pearrari (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no further opinion, I'm willing to make an effort at building a Jack Henry page and loading Symitar (and other division info) into it. Is that a constructive next step? --Pearrari 04:03, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Tong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it was nominated two years ago and it has still asserted no notability or referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete entirely in-universe, no evidence of secondary sources, game cruft of no encyclopedic value. The entirely in-universe "criticisms" section is a nice touch... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE Mbisanz (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Valuable information, but not quite valuable enough to be deserving of an individual article.72.241.182.49 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aedra[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete entirely unencyclopedic in-universe cruft, no evidence of secondary sources, in fact no claim of notability at all. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE Mbisanz (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, with a move to be actively considered. Davewild (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falling of Blossoms[edit]

Google search: "Falling of Blossoms" "Kazuteru Sanada" -wikipedia produces 0 hits. "Falling of Blossoms" manga -wikipedia produces 4. Article is almost impossible to understand due to being written in Engrish, provides little context and is really only a character list. Not notable, no context, minimal content. Cricketgirl (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, very hard to understand what this is about. RMHED (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it makes sense. RMHED (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's overall quality suggests that "Falling of Blossoms" is not a good translation, and so not the best search term. A seach on Japanese name "Rakka Ryuusui" -wikipedia gets 202 results, the first of which is two favorable reviews by Erica Friedman of Yuricon, which is a good secondary source for starting to establish notability -- and given that it's not licensed, ANY notice at all in English strongly suggests notability can be more firmly established with Japanese sources. All the other concerns are cleanup issues, not causes for deletion. Keep, tag it for cleanup (including putting in a request that the translation from the Japanese wikipedia article be completed), notify the relevant Wikiproject that it needs attention, and revisit in six months. —Quasirandom 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A wikifairy has deEngrished the article, to the point that it's coherent enough to make out what it's about, though it still needs work, and I've added a reference to the review I found, so there's at least a sourced assertion of notability. Currently, it stands as a decent stub. If the article survives this AfD, I'll list it for cleanup at WP:Manga. —Quasirandom 18:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'll also propose moving the article to the Japanese title, as Falling of Blossoms is not the correct translation: it means something like "mutual love." —Quasirandom 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned up the article a bit, and it no longer sounds like weird Engrish. The plot section should be expanded upon, but the lack of one is hardly reason for deletion of the entire article. I also agree that the page should be under its Japanese title rather than an unofficial translation. MayumiTsuji 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)MayumiTsuji[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighters' Guild[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fighters' Guild

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep I'm starting to think it's the same gang of people trying to delete these pages. I personally don't want to do that, I think that if this page was merged into an elder scrolls organizations page it would be much more notable. I do think this article does reach notability, but not everyone agrees. I'm more concerned with the lack of sources, it's horrendous. TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we agree; the lack of references, and perhaps the lack of references in existence, is a big problem for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok before this article gets deleted as the Dark Brotherhood just did, I suggest we merge it to Organizations of The Elder Scrolls, as well Dark Brotherhood should be included. Once the page has been expanded and increased in quality, some references could be added and then we would have a near solution to this mess. TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mess is being dealt with as it gets deleted....perhaps you should look for some references to back up this idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't get it, merge this lovely information to add on to the Organizations of TES page, then reference the page and make it good enough to pass quality tests, then there isn't a problem.TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and is non-notable within context of game itself Mbisanz (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the elder scrolls fighters guild is not notable outside the game itself. mind you, if this article became a generic article about the fighters guild as something that's repeated in a lot of RPGs, i would recommend keeping it. it's clearly a reliable and notable plot device. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you put more thought into it you could figure out how to put this information to good use. Example merge with Organizations of The Elder Scrolls. TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FICTION. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jagar Tharn[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, I think it could be merged into the various articles on the Elder Scrolls games. (Criteria for deletion seem very fluid here and I lack sufficient time and ambition to keep up with them. This site seems to have been largely co-opted by those with time to make it their chief hobby, and the inexperienced need not apply. Therefore, these days I leave all but the most trivial editing tasks to them.) Balok 00:24, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has no primary sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorkhan (Elder Scrolls)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete only this article? Video game lore is common as all get out on Wikipedia, and it does no harm to leave it be. - C. Ainsworth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.133.150 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we need well written encyclopedic coverage, not "Game lore". Judgesurreal777 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This data is more or less all that has been given by the developers at this point. It is presented as such. Is "encyclopedic" formatting so very important? I see no issue with the data as it appears now. - As Above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.120.79 (talk) 18:41, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no primary source cited to verify the "content" of this article, which is unecessary plot summary anyway. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional deity outside of the The Elder Scrolls canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerevar[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and is inuniverse without critical outside analysis Mbisanz (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sotha Sil[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and non-notable in game character Mbisanz (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blades (Elder Scrolls)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Chri$topher

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and covers information that could be in main article. Mbisanz (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no notability outside of the main article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FICTION. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houses of Morrowind[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does appear to be material available elsewhere. --Stormbay 18:51, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 13:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - who keeps creating these elder scrolls articles? not notable, outside of elder scrolls. keep the elder scrolls information in actual elder scrolls articles. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FICTION. Maser ^(Talk!) 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This holds information that should not be destroyed. If anything at all should be done with it, it should be merged with Organizations of Elder Scrolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grey Wizard (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spare us the dramatics Grey Wizard, if there is nothing notable about the article, nothing valuable is being destroyed. And if you care about it so much, please find it some references so it actually wont be deleted, as a vote to keep without referencing or a compelling argument will do little. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Realy usefull information. At least merge this with Organizations of Elder Scrolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.57.218 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful is not a criteria to keep an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge this info is very important and should be saved at most move somewhere else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.237.201 (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then transwiki it or get someone else to do it before its gone. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no wiki-rock star Judgesurreal, I am your average user that enjoys researching things and continuing to learn, not just about elder scrolls, but science, math, music, culture, etc... I use this project all the time for my personal enjoyment. I would gladly cite sources in this article if you would be willing to help me out learning how to code the pages. I have made a few pages in the past, but only left external links. Help would be appreciated for making the Internet as a whole more comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grey Wizard (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, not everyone is, but I contend that this page has no notability, and if you disagree you have to find some references, that's just the way it is. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I just don't want to see comprehensive data go down the hole. If I insulted you, no hard feelings, Elder Scrolls does have a soft spot in my heart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grey Wizard (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirn[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of tons of fantasy worlds. Ivalice has it's own article in the same vein, only more work has been put into that one. This one certainly needs a lot of attention, but it is noteable. Still, I'm not convinced it'd be a major issue if these facts were merged into The Elder Scrolls series article. Jay42 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC) This comment moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirn (2nd nomination) Pagra shtak 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even its mother article Major regions of The Elder Scrolls cannot establish notability (i.e. inherited non-notability)– sgeureka ^t•c 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE Mbisanz (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirnroot[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Nirnroot is just a minor miscellaneous quest element. —dv82matt 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ... well all actually. This is a collectible item in Oblivion, an extremely minor aspect of gameplay which doesn't demonstrate out-of-universe notability and no serious journo is going to devote time to writing up something like this.Someone another (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylamug[edit]

The article is a non-notable in-universe repetition of plot points from the He-Man universe and has no notability of its own. As such, it is purely duplicative and has no encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into She-Ra: Princess of Power because this character doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability Mbisanz (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus leaning towards keep after cleanup by DGG. Davewild (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Council on Quality and Leadership[edit]

Delete as blatant advertising Mayalld (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam/COI case, per the creator on the talk page: "We followed the same writing style as The Joint Commission and AAIDD which are closely related to us. We purposefully left out our marketing language." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs spam removed, but this is possible. The organization is in fact notable and the references are real. Deletion is the last resort, after editing fails. COI is only a reason for careful checking and pruning.DGG (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does seem notable, per the article's references, but I recommend gutting it of the advertising-like content. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed some of the spam and excessive emphasis, but there is still some duplication to be removed. Probably should be rewritten altogether by someone unconnected with the organization, but it does seem to be notable. DGG (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and clean-up. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by American artists which reached number-one on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

Non-notable intersection Mangostar (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not yet completed, and is a reverse version of the article List of songs by British artists which reached number-one on the Hot 100 (USA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.199.141 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It only goes from 1990 to this year. The list features several incorrect entries: Razorlight (British/Swedish band whose #1 was called "America"), Shaggy (Jamaican), Akon (Senegalese), Shakira (Columbian), Wyclef Jean (Haitian) and Sean Kingston (Jamiacan). And it also neglects to mention that Neneh Cherry (Swedish), Eric Clapton (British), Westlife (Irish), Dido (British), JXL (Dutch), Sean Paul (Jamiacan), Enya (Irish) and Nelly Furtado(Canadian) who are featured on tracks that are by Americans are not American Doc Strange 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your excellent and detailed observation highlights the fact the article needs editing, not deleting. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lists like this need time to develop properly, it cannot be expected to be perfect and up to date within the first week of creation. (if it becomes abandoned and inaccurate, thats a different story) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, redirect at editors' discretion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Angels International Christian Church[edit]

This article is about a church that does not appear to be notable - in fact, the article describes it as a splinter group of The Los Angeles Church of Christ (which is likely not notable itself). The article has no independent sources. Deli nk (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can't dispute any of the nominator's points, but since it "looks good" with references and links, I'm inclined to wait and see. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It's fairly clear that this is a small, non-notable congregation which is just an off-shoot of a larger church. All external links in the article lend no support toward encyclopedic notability (and they are not even independent of the organization, either). This article is a mere vanity article "written by a member of the mission team" according to the creator's edit summary. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kip McKean, since he is closely identified with this Church. --Jojit (talk) 00:46, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's simply not notable. Redirecting to Kip McKean seems reasonable too. Sally Anne 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When did "looks good" become an item of notability? No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwama creatures[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Morrowind (province). It's simply not notable, and anything of relevence to the video game can be said in other related articles. Slideshow Bob (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of any real world coverage. Nuttah (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Septim[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elder Scrolls Characters: I feel that all the ES Characters collectively are notable enough to get a single page. -Ratwar (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Minimal discussion, but sufficient for this purpose. Xoloz (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bosco Ancestral[edit]

Fails WP:BK. While I recognize that this self-published novel received coverage in Panorama in Interlingua, the "primary periodical for the language Interlingua", I can find no indication that it has received other notice. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weldom[edit]

Notability and sources. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to visit France you would find that Weldom is very notable, being one of the biggest hardware chains in the country. You can't delete it for its notability just because you haven't heard of it. Also, what sources are required? The article is simply a statement of fact: Weldom IS a hypermarket chain in France. If the link to the company's website is bothering you, delete it. I really can't see a reason to include a citation for something as simple as this. Stephen Shaw 13:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; even the French Wikipedia doesn't have an article on that retail banner— it is simply mentionned in passing in the parent company's article. No sources to establish notability, no article. — Coren ^(talk) 06:00, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability questionable at best. Stifle (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the finer points of whether WP:CRYSTAL applies to the existence of this article, it does mean that all valid content can be dealt with at Fergie (singer). JPD (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fergie second studio album[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL concerns. The only source is a blogspot entry. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah let's wait till it at least has a name. Rocket000 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No tracks, title, sources. Crystalline. tomasz. 17:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article now provides three citations, one of which is to Rolling Stone, and WP:CRYSTAL is being misapplied. It was not designed for forthcoming albums. I think the deletion proposal needs to be re-thought. Bondegezou 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fergie (singer). Obviously she'll release another album someday. I think this can wait until there's more details.--CastAStone|^(talk) 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery. Re-create when reliable sources can be found or when album is actually released. Precious Roy (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to an album on which work has already begun. Rolling Stone is clearly a reliable source, as, I would argue, is Undercover.com.au. So, there may be arguments for deleting this article, but I feel some of the arguments presented above are erroneous. Bondegezou (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I disagree: WP:CRYSTAL is absolutely apt for this purpose and "[x] artist's [y] studio album" articles are deleted all the time under it. CRYSTAL doesn't apply "if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (emphasis mine), which history has shown is not the case with such albums. tomasz. 10:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I think the quotation you give from WP:CRYSTAL needs to be read in context. The main concerns addressed at WP:CRYSTAL are about verifiability and avoiding original research: this article has citations. Most of the things specifically discouraged by WP:CRYSTAL do not apply here. The one sentence there about "unreleased products (e.g., movies, games, etc.)" says that they "require special care to make sure that they are not advertising" -- again, I don't see that being a problem in this article. Moreover, there is an implicit recognition there that such articles can be appropriate. Some distinction is also made around cases where "preparation for the event is not already in progress", implying there is less of an isse when preparation is in progress. In this case, work has begun on the album. I feel that, if people have WP:CRYSTAL concerns, they should spell these out in more detail as to how they feel a particular article fails the policy. That WP:CRYSTAL is misused in other AfD debates is no reason to repeat the error. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You're overlooking "almost certain to take place", which Tomasz pointed out already. The way the record industry works, there is no guarantee that this record will come out. I agree it is likely to come out in some form or other, but there is nothing approaching certainty yet. She's still promoting her last album, with a new single coming out. I would be surprised if a follow-up album was released before the end of next year (and less surprised if it came out after 2008)—despite the producer's claims that it is half finished. Information gathered about her work on an upcoming album can be merged into Fergie (singer) until release is ~~immanent~~ imminent. Unless of course there is considerable non-trivial coverage Precious Roy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment.' As I see it, this project already exists. That is, there has been a body of activity creating something. Even if the project was abandoned today, it would still warrant some sort of mention (probably in Fergie (singer)). So, that's why I think the "almost certain to take place" bit of WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant here. As a body of work, something has already taken place. Thus, looking at all of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and WP:N, it seems to me the most important criterion is verifiability. I accept your case elsewhere that there's only one reliable citation given. Unless more turn up, that's insufficient for a standalone article and the material should be merged with Fergie (singer). If more become available, it seems to me that an article is warranted (and allowed under WP:CRYSTAL). So, basically, I agree with your last bit above, if I might quote selectively: "Information [...] can be merged into Fergie (singer) [...] Unless [...] there is considerable non-trivial coverage". Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The crystal-ballery also includes the presumtion that the album will be notable. There are no hit singles and the album has had limited coverage in the media. So—ignoring the fact that it doesn't even exist yet—what's notable about the album? Precious Roy (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Fergie is clearly a notable artist and every album/single she's released as a solo artist and nearly every one she's released with Black Eyed Peas has its own article. So, once released, I presume this article will be notable, even if it doesn't chart. However, to be more methodical about this, I checked WP:MUSIC, which basically comes down to whether there is sufficient verifiable material to make up an independent article. This article currently has three citations, although the first one should probably go. I only said "weak keep" above and accept that's not many citations. Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "I presume this article will be notable" Presuming something will be notable is nothing but crystal-ballery. If the record is released it will most likely be notable but that's when it's actually released. Regarding the citations, note that the 3rd should go also—the site just rehashes news from other sources in an attempt to get AdSense $$ (the Fergie article reports on the Rolling Stone article). Until there is considerable non-trivial coverage from reliable sources (or when the album is actually released) the info can be rolled into the Fergie article. Precious Roy (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the album has a name, we can have an article then. RFerreira (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how having a name actually changes the article's status. What it needs is more coverage. Ten articles about it are worth more than one that announces a name. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Being nominated for a fringe festival award is not really a claim of notability, however this comedy group has been the subject of multiple reviews by non-trivial resources, three of which are cited by the article. The claim to notability may be weak, but it is just enough to pass WP:N and WP:RS. Reso lute 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pappy's Fun Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pappy's Fun Club

Delete very tenuous claim to notability Mayalld (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'tenuous' is putting it quite mildly. See also related Afd Idiots of ants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Nominated for several awards including 'the most renowned accolade at the Edinburgh Festival' the if.comedy award for a sell-out show at that festival. Television appearances including BBC 3 and commercial television. Radio appearances on BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 4, and a regular slot on BBC Radio 1. Recently completed a tour of Universities in England, Scotland and Wales, and recently received sponsorship for significant tour of UK theatres for Autumn 08. BBC Radio 4 have commissioned a show for broadcast in March. Channel 4 television have commissioned a show to be produced by Ash Atalla for broadcast in the summer of 2007. The team have contributed materials to a number of popular mainstream television and radios shows. Agree this needs to be documented on the article, but suggest it should be developed rather than deleted. Brendan D (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable UK sketch comedy act, with good independent press coverage, media appearances and award nominations. Brendan D (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please !vote only once on AfDs. Consider striking through one of your two keep !votes. Thank you. Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it should be kept. They're brilliant. I hardly think that an If. comedy award nomination is a tenuous claim to notability, and think it is a little insulting to them to imply so. How is a group meant to achieve "notability" if their webpages are deleted? I concur with the person above: the entry should be developed and updated rather than deleted. I bet the people that are asking for it to be deleted have never seen them. I challenge them to watch a show and still feel the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M ngal (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — M ngal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Pappy's fun club are a popular sketch act, and the if.comeddies nomination shows them to be important figures on the comedy circuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.143.3 (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC) — 86.4.143.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete. If they win the awards nominated for, then recreate. Till then, non-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potente Versidue-Shaie[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no references. Not featured in any game. Just a figure in the lore/history of the in game universe. —dv82matt 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sae Isshiki[edit]

little information in the article, very few pages link here. IMDB page shows only 2 film credits and 1 TV. Is this a notable actress? Rtphokie (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she got a Japan Academy Prize (film) in 1995 [31]. Most of her work has been in TV and commercials. Whatever the trend is with Oscar winners should apply here (i.e. if an Oscar in itself confers notability, then so should the Japanese equivalent; if not then not). Paularblaster (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known and awarded actress. There's more in the Japanese Wikipedia article. I've put the Japan Academy Prize in the article together with IMDB links. Fg2 (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the notablity citations added. It's even stubbier than the usual stub, though. —Quasirandom 00:57, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability requirements. Being a stub != deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dateline Timeline[edit]

OK first I have to say I'm impressed that anyone could know this much about dateline timeline. Having said that this article is about a 10 second trivia game that was part of the commercial lead ins on dateline. Ridernyc (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and probably not notable. It's just trivia, which wouldn't deserve more than two sentences in the main article, if that much. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, non-notable segment Doc Strange 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. At best, this is a paragraph in the Dateline article. No claim of meeting WP:Notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes. Useful content is already present in that article. As an aside, I do understand the desire to bring it to AfD to develop consensus rather than boldly merging - in the future perhaps a straw poll on the article talk page would be sufficient? Pastordavid (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yips[edit]

TV episode without claim to notability to support having a separate page. Proposing deletion ~~by merging into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes~~ per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here that the article, being just a plot summary, specifically fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article also fails WP:N, since it provides no claim to notability, and obviously no sources corroborating a non-existent claim. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, or expand from reliable sources, such as Zap2it.com, or the Winnipeg Sun, while trimming plot summary. Where does WP:EPISODE say anything about deleting articles? DHowell 01:38, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 13:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Expand. No need to delete. Will be expanded in time. Clearly notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think "clearly" WP:EPISODE should not apply to this unreferenced article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:EPISODE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article has a review from IGN - I would define that as significant coverage in a reliable source.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An episode recap is not a claim to notability, I'm afraid. Especially on a review site. Does this episode even have a claim to notability (other than having a plot), such as winning an award, or attracting attention over a contentious issue? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acutally, it's reliable sources - multiple sources are required to establish notability (that's the so-called "primary notability criterion). --Nehwyn (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTE "Multiple sources are generally preferred." - Preferred NOT required. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So just a single source. Again from WP:NOTE: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." And that's exactly what WP:EPISODE is about. And what claim would this single source corroborate? An award? A particularly high cost for an episode? Or just the fact that it indeed has a plot? --Nehwyn (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody have ever said that there is only one source - three sources have been shown on this page. And again the sources do not in fact have to corroborate anything. Just the fact that it has received significant coverage... means that it is presumed notable.--Peter Andersen (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've seen no claim to notability given, and therefore no source to corroborate it. Just having a plot is not a reason for notability. And indeed, since the article is just a plot summary, it specifically fails WP:NOT. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Why was this even nominated? Nehwyn (who already has gotten the two previous episodes' articles deleted) advocates "deletion by merging into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes." Huh? Just merge it! Deletion is completely unnecessary, a redirect would be useful, and we'd have to retain the revision history to use any of the text. So what is the purpose of this? —David Levy 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I think just doing it without an AfD will result in an edit war. I'll try it on another episode and see what happens, but for now this nomination stands. So, if you have any reason why you think this particular article satisfies WP:EPISODE, please state it here. --Nehwyn (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that this article satisfies WP:EPISODE. That guideline doesn't prescribe the deletion of noncompliant articles. It recommends "merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)" and advises us to "avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."

If, as stated in your nomination, some of the content should be merged into List of How I Met Your Mother episodes, we need to retain the revision history to comply with the GFDL.

We have a process for merging articles, and it doesn't involve AfD. If you're concerned that boldness will lead to an edit war, the article's talk page is the proper forum in which to establish consensus for the proposed merger. —David Levy 10:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I didn't express myself clearly in the nomination. I hope it's clearer now. --Nehwyn (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, striking the part about merging doesn't explain why you're "proposing deletion per" a guideline that explicitly advises against AfD (and demanding that anyone opposed to the article's deletion prove that it complies with said guideline, even when that isn't the point that they're arguing).

The onus is on you to demonstrate that Wikipedia would somehow benefit from this page's deletion. So please explain the advantage over simply redirecting or merging and redirecting (as recommended in the very guideline that you've continually cited). —David Levy 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the merge option, I don't think there's anything to merge; the article only contains a plot summary, and Wikipedia specifically discourages those. Since the article goes against WP:NOT and also does not meet the WP:N criteria on its own, I stand by this nomination. The article contains no encyclopaedic content, and therefore does not even need any verification - there's simply nothing to verify. As it stands, this is a fan recapping an episode he liked - that's WP:OR. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? What position does the author seek to advance? You appear to be much better at tossing up links to policies and guidelines (and seeing what sticks) than you are at actually reading them.

Are you abandoning the WP:EPISODE strategy (and moving on to plan B) now that you realize that it actually undermines your stance (rather than bolstering it)? I've typed detailed replies to your comments, and it's more than a bit frustrating that you've gone out of your way to avoid addressing the parts that aren't convenient for you.

Again, WP:EPISODE (which you have repeatedly cited) advises against taking this matter to AfD. Please explain what we stand to gain by deleting the article instead of simply redirecting the title to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and possibly merging content deemed salvageable). —David Levy 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and make my rationale extra clear this time. I think this article is just a plot summary, and that's something WP:NOT specifically mentions as unfit for Wikipedia. In other words, this is an episode recap, not an encyclopaedia entry at all, and I think that's ground for deletion. That said, the article could still be of some interest if it dealt with an episode that for whatever particular reason (cost, contentious content, innovative filming, etc.) stood out from the rest of the episodes, thus qualifying this episode for its own page - that would be justification enough for a separate episode page under WP:EPISODE. But I think that's not the case for this article. Indeed, the article makes no statement at all why this episode should be notable, and that's failing WP:N. We're even beyond the problem of verifiability and sourcing here - sources are used to back up statements and claim to notability, and the article makes neither - it's just a plot summary. I think these reasons combined are enough to warrant deletion. As for the option of merging content into the List of episodes, I think there's nothing to merge - the article is an extended plot summary, whereas I think only a brief one is needed in the List of... page, and we already have that. So no content to be merged, no reason to preserve page history. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just keep talking past me... —David Levy 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this were a "problem article," deletion would not be the solution (WP:EPISODE). Plus it's rather silly (and contrary to Wikipedia philosophy) to try to delete an article about an episode the day after it airs (and 61 minutes after its creation). From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD:

“

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

”

Calbaer (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that much older articles from the same series still violate WP:NOT and WP:N - after a long interval from their creation - I do not think that the lack of notability of this episode can be "fixed through normal editing". In other words, I think the reason why this article contains no claim to notability does not depend on its being recent - it depends on the fact that there is no claim to make. Therefore, it falls in the "hopeless" category above.

Or in other words, since you pronounced a "keep" opinion, do you hold this article should be kept: 1) because you think it has something that makes this particular episode stand out from the others? (saved from WP:EPISODE]); 2) because you think the article makes a claim to notability that multiple independent reliable sources can confirm? (saved from WP:N); 3) because you think the article is more than a plot summary? (saved from WP:NOT) --Nehwyn (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons stand on their own accord. I believe your reasons more or less fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Calbaer (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. This is an individual deletion process; whether other articles are kept or deleted does not influence this one. I think this particular episode lacks notability; let the others be assessed elsewhere. As for your reasons, you mysteriously say they "stand on their own accord", but does that mean that they can address any of the three concerns above? --Nehwyn (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop selectively quoting the text the suits your agenda and demanding that people choose from your list (and only your list) of rationales. —David Levy 23:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Asking people to address the concerns expressed in a deletion nomination is something that as a nominator I will keep on doing. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've addressed your arguments with rationales X, Y and Z. You've largely ignored these comments and demanded that we present rationales A, B and C (even if those don't reflect our actual viewpoints). You're engaging in a pre-emptive straw man tactic in which you imply that the rationales that you've ruled out are the only ones that could possibly justify not deleting the article (while disregarding the alternative rationales that we've conveyed). And surprisingly, you've implicitly acknowledged that you're doing this (and selectively quoting text that suits your agenda) by responding "no" to my request that you cease this conduct. —David Levy 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have demanded that anyone address specifically the motives for nomination. I am neither implying nor acknowledging anything except that I stand by my reasons for nominating this article. You say you've addressed these concerns already; to be extra clear, please be kind enough to state how below each of them then. Obviously, should you do the same and list yours in the same orderly manner, I'll be glad to reciprocate. Minimum confusion. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the episode featured in this article has no particular reason to stand out from other episodes in the series. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in question is merely a plot summary. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article in question provides no indication of real-world notability. Can you address this concern? --Nehwyn (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect the page to List of How I Met Your Mother episodes (and merge any useful content), as recommended in WP:EPISODE. —David Levy 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost funny. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm addressing your false argument that failing to disprove your claims of deficiency necessitates the article's deletion. —David Levy 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you put it that way... I love the creative use of thesaurus there. What you call "claims of deficiency" I (and most deletion debates out there) call "reasons for nomination". So no problem - I said earlier that I felt that your replies failed to address the "claims of deficiency" I had brought forward, and apparently that was exactly the case, and it's become clearer now that direct questions and direct answers were posted. I'm okay with that. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been clear from the very beginning that I'm not attempting to refute your assertion that this article fails to meet the criteria laid out at WP:EPISODE. I'm disputing your inexplicable assertion that the only solution is to delete it. Again, that guideline (which you have repeatedly cited) explicitly advises against nominating the article at AfD and recommends that we instead merge/redirect. This is far more useful to readers and editors alike.

In other words, I am addressing your claims of deficiency by noting that they are accurate but insufficient justification for the article's deletion.

No matter how many times I explain the above, you continue to demand that I disprove the claims that I have no intention of even attempting to counter. As I said, this is a pre-emptive straw man argument on your part.

Someone could nominate the Mickey Mouse article for deletion with the rationale "It's about a cartoon character." Someone else could then argue that this isn't a valid reason to delete the article. The nominator could then respond with "I think that this article is about a cartoon character, and you have written nothing to refute that." This is basically tantamount to what you're doing. —David Levy 20:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the case only if "no articles about a cartoon character" were a Wikipedia guideline. Unlike in your misleading example, my reasons for deletion are not arbitrary; they're actual policies. Anyway: you simply consider my three motivations not grounds for deletion, whereas I do. That's fair enough for me, and we can just agree to disagree on this point and wait for someone to close the AfD one way or the other. --Nehwyn (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel Septim VII[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Elder Scrolls. Game is notable, character not so much. Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elder Scrolls Characters: I feel that all the ES Characters collectively are notable enough to get a single page. -Ratwar (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:FICT. Provides no real world context. Keep !votes had no basis in policy. Reso lute 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summerset Isles[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other articles in the Elder Scrolls series have withstood AfD with shakier grounds and much less content. -Senori (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean this article has any notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's with you (judge) and notability, the purpose of notability rules is so nobody starts up articles about their WoW guild (something I've seen before by the way), this is an article that has proven itself well known to thousands and relevant to millions (based on retail sales) so I'm gonna go with a keep, but again if someone puts up a giant TES locations page, this could get the axe, although expanding this article and putting up a summary and link on said TES locations page could work.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what would doing any of that accomplish? If none of it is relevant to the wider world, and there is no evidence that it is (creator commentary, early designs, controversy among gamers), then it is as unnotable as all those guilds. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game is relevant to thewider world, and therefore the elements of it are also. As a major location its important within the game and so, if enough can be said, is appropriate for an article. DGG (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....Yet it still have no references, so no confirmed notability. How does that make any sense? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, so it has 1 outside source, its been up fo AfD for at least 12 days, it is written in-universe and based on a gameguide, showing tendencies that lead me to believe it fails our notability guidlines.Mbisanz (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another target for destruction? Google Summerset Isles and this article is the first result. I think it's not only obvious that this article is helpful, but also it is very well written and frequently visited. Deletion would just be a waste of perfectly good information on a game universe. Granted perhaps this article should specify more on the fact that it is all part of a video game, so I will do a little bit of revision to make it demonstrate more non-fictional information and make more sense to the first time reader when I get home from work. Likewise I think Black Marsh, Morrowind, High Rock, etc... should be re-posted and minorly revised in the same mannner. In this method we all win, no vital information is deleted and wikipedia is better maintained for a little bit.

Good Day The Grey Wizard (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC) — The Grey Wizard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of this addresses the notability of the topic. Pagra shtak 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Wizard, you have zero understanding of Wikipedia policies or how articles about fiction are supposed to be written; please see WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF, because otherwise your not not making a coherent argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Know what I would like to see Judgesurreal? Hold all polices that you have cleverly manipulated to your will aside for one moment please. I would like to see more comprehension with these articles, the same thing I assume you should or do want to see. I would have not problem with this being merged with Tamriel, cleaned up a bit, revised, and ultimately more useful. I think if this was merged, it would be more tidy and comprehensive, so long as the links from Google, and wikipedia about Summerset Isles were linked to the actual information about Summerset. In that manner we both get what we want, wikipedia is more clean for you, and I still have the information I so "dramatically" value. I am an Elder Scrolls Modder, and I use these pages all the time, weather for a nice little reminder, or serious research. I, among other Beyond Cyrodiil Modders can and will use these pages, no matter if they are individual scattered articles or finely organized into one article. Agreed? Truce? No more war? The Grey Wizard (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Wizard, this is an Encyclopedia, it is not supposed to be useful in terms of learning about all the details of a fictional world, or simply the repetition of plot points or geographic details from "The Elder Scrolls" or any other fictional world. You must understand that there is an Elder Scrolls wiki that has this type of information that you enjoy using and reading about the game, but Wikipedia structures this kind of information differently, and here we can discuss how the topic was developed, how the writers and developers created the world, and how their creation was reflected in the wider world. If we cant pull that off, then there is no need of an article on this topic. As I have mentioned in another AFD, I believe we will probably be able to put together a "Universe of the Elder Scrolls series", and if we are lucky, a "Characters of the Elder Scrolls series", but every detail of this universe would probably be a quixotic quest as we have yet to find one reference for most of these Elder Scrolls fiction articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to remove this. A lot of people i know use this article. I use this article. it got good information so i dont see why it should be removed. 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.247.57.218 (talk) — 83.247.57.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Useful" is not a keep criteria, and you have also ignored the nominating concerns. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SharkD (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NOT a game guide. Reso lute 03:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucien Lachance[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Characters of Oblivion. —dv82matt 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even I think this is a merge. There is a nice page waiting to take on a brief summary of this article.TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect. only has in-universe notability. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rapp Photography[edit]

Vanity article fails to meet WP:BIO. —Caesura ^(t) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep but delete all the COI and email address. It is a vanity piece, but there may be enough ref's to warrant inclusion, just written by someone other than himself. Pharmboy (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, spam. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity Autohagiography. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to Weak Keep above, but not even the author would fix the serious issues with COI and such. email address is still there to boot. Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. Done. Neıl ☎ 13:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chaplin[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and episode articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge: I agree that the character is not important enough for his own page and instead of deletion it should be merged to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters after excessive plot details have been removed since most of the profile are on various episodes from Season 3. Take a look at what I have done so far to remove all unneeded details to fix the WP:Fiction thing you are talking about. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hun (TMNT)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and episode articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have become unweildy. Pertinent information should be presented in the season article, but beyond that I'm not sure the extraneous info has a place within our remit. Hiding T 14:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is just an unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Turtelli[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling to find a way that this information can be used encyclopedically outside of what is already held in the series article. Hiding T 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets (TMNT)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the fictional topic fails to utilize secondary sources to provide real-world context for the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky one. I'm not sure how lists stack up, we encourage them to group information like this but they need to be better presented and maintained. Hiding T 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, will leave a redirect to Nexus. Neıl ☎ 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Nexus[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't make my mind up whether to redirect to Nexus and add a dab note or redirect to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), either way as a useful search term. What sort of info can we extract from here? The Usagi appearance is of note, as is the potential appearance in the comic book of the idea. That's about it to my eye. Hiding T 13:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Pastordavid (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements[edit]

Delete article about a book by nn author without 3rd party independent sources showing any notability, fails WP:BK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been reviewed in the Jerusalem Post and two academic journals[32][33][34] and Google Books shows that it's been pretty widely cited. It's notable enough.P4k 09:18, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be quite notable per P4k. 96T 17:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Marcotte[edit]

Not notable, tagged since June 2007 as non-notable Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Well, he really was Canadian national dualthon champion. Does that count for something? Student7 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking the same thing. On balance, though, that wasn't a particularly notable event, so he doesn't get an article for winning it. It seems more like a promotional biography than a neutral point of view article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searching Google News and Google News archives turns up nothing substantive enough to establish notability.^[35] --A. B. ^(talk) 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:35, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hedrick Cooperative[edit]

Unremarkable organisation, with scant to non-existent claims to notability, article clearly written as a puff-piece by the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claims are fine and the sourcing isn't bad for an article just created in the past few days. Doesn't read like a puff-piece at all, merely like a new editor's first contribution. Mango juice^talk 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely uninteresting and utterly non-notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nearest thing to a claim to notability seems to be "It is the oldest student owned cooperative in East Lansing.". I don't think that's enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney anthology television serials[edit]

This particular television series, while technically having 770 "episodes" mostly reshowed other stuff from other Disney shows, featurettes, and movies. There is no reason to have an article that even attempts to make a list of it all when most of it would be repeats of stuff already found elsewhere. Collectonian (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same comments as above. No reason to have duplicate information. Truthanado (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/keep/rename? Some contents on the show are rare have not seen day of light since it original broadcast able elsewhere see Walt Disney Treasures series so I settle for the goal to make a list that could host the rare content that were not found elsewhere. I know about good source that could be used to create the list. What I intended to have on it was list of the animation, educational, the TV miniseries, and the documentaries that where shown on the series. But the only thing that I was going to skip was the films other wise I could have created list of films shown in/at Disney anthology TV series. So I placed a construction tag on the list to see what would happen with it but no one have clue what to do, so I am not surprised to se it nominated for delete. But mybe the list sould be renamed as rare materals shown in/at Disney anthology television series if it is keept or I could re creat the list when I have better time to solve this problem. The Tramp 13:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant article where the encyclopedic qualities of the topic can be explored? It seems there is some merit in mentioning that Disney made anthology shows. Is there any other info that is pertinent and can be extracted here? Hiding T 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mif Kumas[edit]

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources even to substantiate the in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this plot summary has no primary or secondar sources to demonstrate the notability of this character in the real-world. --Gavin Collins 10:00, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't relist unless there are new developments (or users aren't allowed to request that). --Thin boy 00 @41, i.e. 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only possible merge destination has been deleted, making that moot. Neıl ☎ 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijinbō[edit]

Completing unfinished nom by User:Pilotbob. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inuyasha or similar page, or delete if that page is too large. Not notable on it own. Xymmax (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the guidelines in WP:FICT to List of minor InuYasha characters. Not a sufficiently notable character, even in-universe, to warrent an article of his own. —Quasirandom 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: List of minor InuYasha characters has also been AfDed and was deleted. Collectonian (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Quasi and Xy. --Gwern (contribs) 00:48 5 December 2007 (GMT)
Merge per above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT and is an extremely minor character (appears in one, maybe two episodes). Only needs mentioning in the appropriate episode summaries. Collectonian (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character is pretty incidental in the series and the only significant factor that he plays is that he is the one who forged Tōkijin. --Farix (Talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incidental character in a piece of fiction. PKT (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guard of New Prussia[edit]

"Guard of New Prussia" gets only a couple of hundred google hits; none of them are reputable news sources and most are just usegroup postings asking for new members. There are no references to back up this organization's notability. The 'official web site' has just an image and a phone number (though there are a few hidden pages if you search on Google). This is a non-notable organization.

The page about it's leader Joe Foss (GNP) should also be deleted if this one is. user talk:199.71.183.2 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable organisation - no sources except its own website and a You tube page. Obina (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process "vote" to keep -- insufficient to substantiate deletionist agenda. Article undoubtledly requires clean-up & sourcing, but it asserts notability as a political movement. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what is a "procedural vote"? Are you the closing admin? (That's who should take care of procedural questions, not the "voters".) --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without substantial independent sources (and no one has presented any), there's no base for an encyclopedia article. An article sourced to the organization's website only can hardly ever meet the standards of WP:NPOV, which is particularly important for political topics. It also fails WP:ORG for the same reason. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Music[edit]

Record label without notable artists for which no reliable sources seem to exist Tikiwont (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ghits are unimpressive. article is very short, no assertion of notability. Seems to this one stands on very thin ice if at all. Andante1980 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indie labels, as a rule, are surely notable in a subculture rather than at large? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm.. either it's notable or not. Subculture topics get undue weight on Wikipedia, anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep founded by two members of the rock band The Early November who are certainly notable. The label just barely meets WP:N Doc Strange 14:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable releases on the label (not even within the "subculture" frame of reference). If and when some notable records come out, the article can be re-created. Any info can be included in the Early November article 'til then. Precious Roy (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to write a definition on Wiktionary with reliable sources, they are more than welcome to do so. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recoursed[edit]

Might fit in a dictionary, but it is pretty self explanatory Ng.j (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary it might not be for those of us who haven't be in the Canadian military...--victor falk 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Wikipedia It may also be useful in Wiktionary, but there's nothing terribly wrong with it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... apart from the fact that there are no sources (apart from a pseudonymous post on a web discussion forum that is wholly untrustworthy) to enable readers to check the article and the article title doesn't adhere to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs). Uncle G 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:35, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article to be written on the subject of recoursing. I've found a book (ISBN 0714633542) that has some statistics on the effects of recoursing, for example. But this article isn't it. It isn't even a good stub, because what little it does say about the subject is wrong. The book that I found had nothing at all to do with Canada. This is what one gets when a Wikipedia editor bases an article on a pseudonymous web discussion forum post instead of proper sources, and just makes a hypothesis up off the top of xyr head. It's hard to see the point in keeping incorrect content at an incorrect article title. Uncle G 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Uncle G's comments above. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary This process can also be known as being 'back-squaded', in the British military. It will never be an article but should be in Wiktionary. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wiktionary doesn't want stuff that's wrong, either. Uncle G (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is wrong with it? Seems to be a pretty simple term; being held back for the next course. Can't it be simply and easily fixed, then transwiki'd? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on band[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Has had several releases on Youngblood Records, which does not appear to be a notable label (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youngblood Records). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability. Lugnuts (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Republic Intelligence[edit]

No assertion of real-world notability. Two of the "sources" would be more aptly titled "appearances," and role-playing material sources offer only the same in-universe plot summary contained in the article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fine articles on the Wookiepedia and the other SW wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zekk (EU)[edit]

No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources even to substantiate the in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also has an inappropriate name --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has no real world content,context or sources of any kind. --Gavin Collins 10:04, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 13:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see wikia:starwars:Zekk has an indepth fictional biography to the character, so no need to transwiki (I don't know in how far soft redirects to wikia are common practise or allowed). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BVS Performance Systems[edit]

Recreated article after G11 speedy deletion, without much (if any) improvement. Still very little in the way of verifiable notability claims and still reads like an advertisement. Dougie WII (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather A7 than G11, still probably speediable, but personaly, I'd prefer the AfD to run, so it might be G4 (recreation of deleted material) in the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the opportunity to edit this page further and will work on it 11/28/07. It seems very comparable to me to other articles about businesses that I've seen but will attempt to improve and provide additional evidence of notability. Smithbernard (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I revised the article pretty substantially on Nov 28 and hope it will be found acceptable. Smithbernard 21:48, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand how this article fails those guidelines. The company is as notable as a good number of others that are linked to Learning Management System -- such as Saba Software, Apex Learning, ANGEL Learning, Desire2Learn -- and the content is similar in nature. If someone can advise me about where it doesn't measure up, I would appreciate some additional time to revise as needed. Thank you. Smithbernard (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Fletcher[edit]

The only claim of notability of this article is an entry in imdb.com saying that the subject co-produced a couple of films, one in 1995 and another in 2006. Main contributor of the article seems to be the subject himself.[36] JRSP (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was published in a book series about notable people, at least implied by the article. There is two interwiki links (es and fr), but both likely done by the same person (uses the same name in one). At first glance it looked like a keep, but besides a imdb page, I couldn't find anything. Rocket000 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles River Center[edit]

Non-notable strip center in Massachusetts, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another non notable shopping center. Although, a redirect to the city may be appropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They didn't have to do anything, but they did, to save a wetland habitat. WP:RS + WP:N are now satisfied. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Barely. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another small not notable mall. The claimed notability is on a par with other malls giving money to some group. Simply not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, the article now meets verifiability with multiple reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep, following rewrite of page. Yes, one "delete" was given, but it was prior to the page's rewrite. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legends At Village West[edit]

VERY promotional piece on an (ugh) lifestyle center in Kansas. Tagged for cleanup since May; even with promotional tone removed, it's just another non-notable clump of stores. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per rewrite of page, notability and sources are now sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and it reads like an advertisement too. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very large super-regional mall with a gross leasable area of 1.2 million square feet, Consensus is clear that such malls are notable. Regardless of trying to impose one's personal bias (ugh) against such lifestyle centers, ample reliable and verifiable sources are available for this article. Notability has been established. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's a fancy mall with fancy restaurants around an area where lots of people go already anyways. Too promotional and it can't be salvaged the way it is. Nate · (chatter) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Miracle of miracles! It's been salvaged AND sources have been added! Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are now there...Keep Nate · (chatter) 11:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Legends is a very notable shopping/dining/entertainment development. It's the centerpiece of Village West, which has become the most visited tourist attraction in Kansas. Actually, Village West should have its own article. Currently it has only a section in the Kansas City, Kan. article. --Skylights76 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Super regionals are notable. WP:N and WP:RS satisfied, and so am I. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midtowne Little Rock[edit]

Non-notable "lifestyle center" in Arkansas, fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOT#DIR, seeing as page is mostly a list of stores in the mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom (NN / directory entry). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion permit time for User:ArkansasTraveler to continue his revision of the Article. He has made significant contributions and progress from the original. "mostly a list of stores in the mall" is not a reason for Deletion, more a reason for editing, dont you think? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:05, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think it's still mostly a directory entry and it's unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability for another small mall. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Recent opening, but 19 stores isn't that small to me Mbisanz (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Arctic Territory[edit]

I don't think this is a notable hoax, as hoaxes go. I can't find any coverage by any reliable, secondary sources. Furthermore, article doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry. Picaroon (t) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. I too, cannot find sufficiently sources to help here. Question for the nom though, I am confused as to why you restored this page from 6 months ago, just to list for AfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator emailed me asking for it to be undeleted. Picaroon (t) 01:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think this was a notable hoax, though I have not investigated. If retained, to should be renamed British Arctic Territory (Hoax), so that its nature is immediately clear. Peterkingiron 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only person to have documented this hoax is the hoaxer xyrself. It's not documented anywhere else at all that I can find. There are no independent sources. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Alberon 16:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#“powered by EJRS.com” --A. B. ^(talk) 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you go out of the way to mock me. I was new back then to Wikipedia. I had placed links to my sites on my own user page. So when I was told that one can't add links to their own websites on their own user pages, I removed them. That was ages ago. Am I still having to pay the price years later? As per Uncle G's note that the BAT is not recorded elsewhere, let me bring it to your attention that the article is at: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb!bat.html EJRS

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushra Jamil - Miss Pakistan[edit]

Not really notable. Has entered a few minor contests and not really been that successful !!! thisisace (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She didn't win anything!?!? Lack of sources in article, and via google. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete competed in two apparently non-notable beauty contests. "World Miss University" doesn't have an article nor is it even listed in our list of beauty pageants. Miss Pakistan World is a stub and doesnt appear notable. Also no reliable sources (surprising, huh?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She didn't win Miss Pakistan World, and that event didn't even attract any contestants from Pakistan. Clarityfiend 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is disagreement over the value of the Google Scholar search count, the main argument in favor of deletion is the lack of independent sources detailing Franzi's contributions to the research field. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edo. Franzi[edit]

Apparently non-notable scientist; fails WP:PROF/WP:BIO due to a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-notable EPFL robots. Sandstein (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Lack of third party coverage. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has one paper with very impressive citations (Mobile robot miniaturisation) but then his publication record tails off dramatically. But that one paper should be enough, I think. I'd accept a merge to an article on the subject of that paper, per WP:BLP1E, if we had one, but I don't think we do. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web of Science lists only 5 publications, each cited only once. Google Scholar gives more citations, but not many more papers. Franzi is only second author (the least important spot) of three on the most cited paper noticed above by David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep that one paper has over 360 citations in Google scholar, and from the other citations it appears that he was a major figure in further developments. The articles mentioned by Sandstein in the nomination were unanimously kept--as he cites them for notability of the subject, i conclude there is a reasonable case for the developer as well. DGG (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemundel[edit]

Location doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article. When I came across the article and noticed the POV issues, I tried to do research to fix or cite the claims in the page but could not locate any references relating to it except for a few random mentions in a couple of pages of only the locations name. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Settlements are usually inherently notable, but I can't find any proof that this place even exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral until there's confirmation that this is an actual settlement. I having trouble finding any. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) It does seem to be a confirmed geographical named location. --Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 12:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Geographical locations are inherently notable and I have added few citations related to this place in the article, and have cleaned up the article as well. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a real, verified place. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Street (Simcoe, Ontario)[edit]

Another probably hoax from the same editor; cutting through the false sounding parts, while this is a street, it seems to be a pretty unnotable and I don't think all streets automatically are notable for articles like cities are. Collectonian (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Festival reference and Keep I believe the Ontario highway is good enough for a keep, but the Festival thing doesn't feel reliable to me. DMighton (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highway 24 (Ontario): It is the same street, so why do we need separate articles? - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with DMighton. The fact that it is part of an Ontario highway and a town street at the same time makes it notable enough for a keep. GVnayR 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we're talking about places the size of Simcoe, a subsection in the highway's article would be more appropriate than an independent article. Never mind that Simcoe is a community within an incorporated municipality, not a town in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highway 24 (Ontario). I'm inclined to feel the opposite of DMighton: Except for the festival bit, it is all OR.DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though admittedly some of it reads a bit oddly, this isn't a hoax — it's just an article about a local street in a small community which would be better served by redirecting to Highway 24 (Ontario). Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir - Bearcat has said all my words. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Festival (Simcoe, Ontario)[edit]

Another possible hoax article; if real, festival does not meet notability requirements Collectonian (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DMighton (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously real, and notable per a Google news search. I've tagged the article as needing sources, as it does not have any, but there are several within the google news search which can be added to the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rjd0060 and ghits. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, but keep. This is a sufficiently notable community fair which attracts visitors from a fairly large portion of Southwestern Ontario. Why would you think this was a possible hoax? Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created it has made a glut of articles that are 99% false with maybe a 1% kernel of truth to them. This one was one of them and was mostly unbelievable or odd commentary. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that he has a problematic history (this is still my favourite stunt of his), but he mainly inserts personal POV and has a weird sense of notability at times — I've never known him to post outright hoaxes. FWIW, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Glen Mall[edit]

Small, non-notable mall in Mass., only claim is that there was once a store in it owned by the drummer of Godsmack (shiver). I really don't think that's enough, however (especially when cited to a blog). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom (NN). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $10,500 worth of notable Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A donation of $10,500 is simply not notable. Vegaswikian 06:24, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notabilty This is a Secret ^account 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All malls are inherently non-notable. Oh, wait... Article fails to establish that this mall has been primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in relaible independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan A Lozada[edit]

Reads like an autobiography, not really notable. P4k (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only assertion of notability is starting a group (OSLSIRR), however that group doesn't seem notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank (language game)[edit]

No claim to notability given. No references. --Nehwyn (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per N and NFT, also unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources, no claim to notability. Wongm (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is yet another example of a bunch of schoolchildren inventing something and then abusing Wikipedia as a free web host for documenting their invention. The first paragraph of the article pretty much says this outright. There are, of course, no sources to be found anywhere. It's unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honoured to have you here, Uncle G. :) --Nehwyn 14:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wongm. No sources, could have been something made up. 1ForTheMoney 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. JohnCD 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though I would recommend that this article's supporters add references, and prune the non-records from the list. i.e.: "In 2004, Federer became the first player since Ivan Lendl in 1986 and 1987 to win back-to-back Tennis Masters Cup titles without losing a match". This is not a record, but a piece of trivia. Reso lute 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records held by Roger Federer[edit]

Federer is encyclopedic, a list of his awards might be (though I tend to say no), but this piece of unreferenced fancruft is a bit much. See WP:IINFO for details. Biruitorul (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge only what may be sourced back into Roger Federer, such as e.g. value of purses received. Comparisons of numbers of purses won back-to-back and other such manufactured records are violations of synthesis unless they have secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck is a "smerge"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Semi-merge, I reckon, as Dhartung said he'd prefer merging only some of the contents. Biruitorul (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For both of you, Wikipedia:Glossary is your friend. Uncle G 13:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft? All of it is referenced. Whether one likes Roger Federer or not is irrelevant to whether the material should be on wikipedia or not. The information is valuable and helpful. If a reporter wants to keep track of tennis records that are likely to be broken in the near future, it helps to have a lis like this. Keep. Benkenobi18 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "All" of it is referenced? Sorry, of some 66 "records" listed, I only see citations for 3. I never said whether or not I like Federer, so that's a straw man. "Valuable", "helpful", "if a reporter..." -- do see WP:NOT. Plus, any evidence that any of these (other than those three) are actually considered records by anyone other than the authors? See WP:V and WP:NOR for why we need that as well. Biruitorul (talk) 00:20, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. Nom admits a list of Federer's records and awards may be encyclopedic in it's own rite. Main article for Roger Federer is 88Kb, so there really isn't room to merge anything. If only reason for deletion is that it's not currently cited properly, slap a ref tag on it or fix the issue. This isn't a valid reason for deletion, because the bulk of it appears readily sourceable. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not quite. I admit the List of the awards won by Roger Federer may be encyclopedic "in it's own rite" [sic], but I stand firm by my contention that the article we are now discussing, the list of Records held by Roger Federer, is not. The fact that something "appears" readily sourceable is fairly irrelevant: the question is why such a list should belong in an encyclopedia. And so far no one has provided ample reason, though the fact that but 3 of some 66 "records" are cited is yet another black mark against this effort. Biruitorul (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this article much more handy in terms of reference material then the biographical article. I would be willing to hunt down sources confirming all of these records on wikipedia if requested. A simply consultation of the article provides a wealth of information. Most of them are evident upon careful examination of the atp players profile. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the entries aren't made up out of thin air. But if each one were cited (and we're a long way from that), we're still left with two conundra: a) who considers these to be "records"? b) why, ultimately, should Wikipedia be concerned with that? I believe, and I am supported by WP:NOT in this, that the list veers too far into the trivial to be of encyclopedic merit. Biruitorul (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete an attempt at an extra article by putting together by OR every possible permutation of circumstances that could be conceivable called a record. the word fancruft, much as I dislike it, does apply to this sort of article. So does the the much overused word indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is ridiculous. This is a separate topic on its own from Roger's awards. And I reckon this deletion proposal is just spam by someone who doesn't like him for some reason. His record is so impressive that it deserves its own article. This guy is a living legend and there will probably not be another like him in any sport. I mean this is like over 50 records. And on a personal note, it is actually somewhat fun to read all these records, you just go "wow." And I'm sure many agree with that. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Assume Good Faith -- I never expressed a personal opinion on Federer; I don't even have one, for the record. Please make your case based on Wikipedia policies -- the fact that "you just go 'wow'" when reading the list is not a reason for retention. Do you have any evidence, for instance, that any third-party sources consider these to be "records", or that any of them (except the three cited ones) are verifiable? Biruitorul (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete CSD A7 may apply, as the article really failed to assert notability. General manager of a county power utility? Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:N as I am unable to find much in the way of reliable , non-trivial, sources to establish a claim of notability. The best article I found, after searching for "Steve Klein" was an article about Mr. Klein receiving a 22% raise. That article was more about the concept of giving big raises to maintain competitiveness There was not anything else where Mr. Klein was the primary focus. Reso lute 02:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Klein[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobiography. Dougie WII (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - which part of WP:BIO exactly does it fail? It seems there is at least one independent source mentioning the subject (pt. 3) and the link to Enron might be enough for pt. 1 (someone from the US would have to judge that). --.Tom. (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
abstain - not enough information to form an opinion. If it's kept, however, there should be a disambiguation made between Steven Klein (utilities) and Steven Klein (fashion). The "What links here" shows several links that don't refer to the utilities guy. Travisl (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Reso lute 02:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Association for Community Living[edit]

Local agency that fails WP:N Collectonian (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This agency operates in a county which itself is not exactly the most notable place in Ontario. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable on its own, but could potentially be merged into an omnibus article on community living facilities for people with disabilities in Ontario. Redirect if somebody's willing to start that, delete otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Green Party. Done. Neıl ☎ 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-War Greens Debate[edit]

"Pro-War Greens Debate" seems to be a made up term. Article seems to be entirely based on one person's published opinion piece. WP:NPOV Barrylb (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —Barrylb (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the article author, and I recommend keeping the article for the following reasons:

1. Debate. The OED defines “debate” as being an argument or contention. Clearly in this case there is a genuine argument and/or contention concerning how we ought to interpret the commitment of Green political parties to peace and nonviolence. The title of the Wikipedia article is therefore, I believe, appropriate. The NPOV issue is whether the entry gives equal space to the Greens and the critique of the Greens position. I think it does.

2. Opinion piece. I think that the editor confuses an article which states an opinion and an opinion piece. An opinion piece is generally defined as a piece of writing which gives an opinion or view, without providing evidence. If a piece of writing does provide referenced evidence for an opinion or view, then this is known as scholarly research. If one goes to the on-line version of the source article in question <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00008590/01/8590.pdf>, then it is apparent that the source article is not an opinion piece as such, given a) it is an article in one of Australia’s reputable political science journals b) it does cite evidence, with some 26 references to both primary and secondary documentary sources, c) the source article does conform to the OECD definition of research, in that it does employ the apparatus and conventions of scholarly research.

3. Even if the article is to be understood as an opinion piece, it is difficult to see why, under the Wikipedia criteria, that this means that the article ought to be deleted. Similarly, I am not aware of anything under the Wikipedia policies which indicates that one needs more than one source. Moreover, the one source suggestion is misleading, as the source article itself has 26 endnote references to numerous primary and secondary historical sources. Why not include these references in the Wikipedia article? My thinking was that this would simply make the Wikipedia article too long, and in any case a curious reader would be readily able to access these further references on-line.

4. Verifiability. The Wikipedia Verifiability Policy indicates that “articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The source article is published in the political science journal AQ:Australian Quarterly, published for the past 75 years by the respected and independent Australian Institute for Policy and Science <http://www.aips.net.au/>. The journal AQ is in fact included as a core journal in the Worldwide Political Science Abstracts database <http://www.csa.com/ids70/serials_source_list.php?db=polsci-set-c>, available on-line with most university libraries (please look under the previous name of AQ: Journal of Contemporary Analysis). Moreover, as stated above, the source article itself contains 26 references to primary and secondary historical sources, including quotations from scholarly works and from Hansard. As stated above, the article does conform to the OECD definition of research.

5. Neutrality. It is difficult to see how there could be any argument about the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. The structure of the article involves a) a statement that there are divergent viewpoints on the commitment of the Greens to peace and nonviolence and the significance of this issue, b) the Greens official position, and c) the critique of the Greens position. Approximately equal space is given to the Greens official position and to the critique, and moreover the article at all times merely describes positions – it does not itself make any denunciations. If one looks at the References for the Wikipedia article, there are scholarly sources both in support of the Greens (3) and critical of the Greens (1). The article gives equal weight to both positions and it seems difficult how one might claim that this is biased in any way.

I understand that any deletion decision is made strictly on the basis of Wikipedia policies. On the basis of these policies, I believe this Wikipedia article clearly ought to stay. I am the primary author of the Wikipedia article.

User:JDakins —Preceding comment was added at 09:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: (1) On neutrality, the article's title is not neutral - it basically takes a POV position that the "Greens are Pro-war" and says "here is the debate". (2) Your involvement in this article is a serious conflict of interest. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. -- Barrylb (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Please see my response (as author of the article) as below:

1. Procedural fairness. I do have some problems of procedural fairness about adding additional objections to an article more than mid-way through the consideration process. The objections to the title and to COI were not mentioned at the outset. If an editor has bona fide objections to a particular article, then he/she ought to state these from the outset. As a matter of fairness, you cannot try one line of objection to an article, and then try another when it seems that the initial one does not carry weight.

2. Another problem of adding additional grounds of deletion is that one does not know whether the editor is still challening on the additional grounds cited. For instance, the editor has previously claimed that the source article is only an "opinion piece". Does the editor still believe this?

3. However, having said the above, I will respond to the complaints regarding the title and supposed conflict of interest.

4. Title. The editor alleges that the title says “The Greens are Pro-War” and then “Here is the debate”, and that this is therefore a POV. Well, actually the title does not say this at all. The title is one phrase, “The Pro-War Greens Debate”. The word “debate” is clearly indicative that there is opinion pro and con on this issue, which is exactly what the situation is and which reflects NPOV. Moreover the article then proceeds to give equal weight to divergent positions, as required under NPOV.

5. Alleged conflict of interest. I don’t think it is sufficient merely to allege this without substantiation. It is necessary to indicate in exactly what ways there is an alleged COI and the objective evidence for this.

6. I believe that deletion decisions ought to be made strictly on the Wikipedia principles and then only with evidence. Anything other than this is not editing but censorship. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that the article contravenes Wikipedia principles and therefore I urge that the article remain.

Regards, User:JDakins —Preceding comment was added at 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I withdraw my comments about a conflict of interest. As I read your comments I thought you meant you were the author of the article published in the journal but you only meant you are the author of the wiki article: sorry.

2. My comments regarding the title was to respond to your claim that "It is difficult to see how there could be any argument about the neutrality of the Wikipedia article". This relates to my initial complaint (NPOV) and wasn't intended to introduce an entirely new line of complaint.

3. I would like to propose we rename the article to "Greens Position on War" - it doesn't label the Greens as "Pro War" or presuppose the Greens' position. Instead it opens the way to state the aspects of the Greens position on war. Barrylb 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I think that what you are suggesting is not as direct or communicative as "Pro-War Greens Debate". However, having said that, and seeking to reach some consensus, might I suggest, as a minor variation on your suggestion, the title "Debate on the Greens and War". My reason for suggesting this rather than "The Greens Position on War" is that the article is actually giving more than the Greens position on war - it is giving an insight into an area of controversy in political science. The opening sentence of the article would also need to be re-written, deleting "The Pro-War Greens debate refers to divergent interpretations of the ..." and replacing this with the simpler "There is a significant area of debate over the ...". The writer in me says that one ought always to use the active rather than passive voice where possible. I also don't really think that Pro-War Greens Debate does violate NPOV. However, in the interests of us both getting some sleep, I can live with another title. User:JDakins —Preceding comment was added at 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be convinced that there is actually a "significant area of debate" to justify making an article based on the debate itself, rather than the underlying issues. To establish significance I would like to know if there are more published works (in popular media and scholarly journals) on the topic. Is the cited journal article the only work on the topic? Barrylb 03:41, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Green Party. This article focuses on one particular critique of the party. I think this information would be best served in a controversy section in the main article, rather than being separate. As of now, it's not covered there at all. --Cyrus Andiron 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a paragraph into the article on the party--I cannot see how every topic discussed by them warrants a separate article. DGG (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sympathetic to the idea of merging, although this does raise the some difficulties, given that the source article deals in particular with the German Greens, the Australian Greens and Bob Brown. Ought a section or paragraph be inserted into each of these? I think that the better option might be the separate article. Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of a separate article is that it is the best mechanism to give clear expression to NPOV, in other words, to give equal space to the argument of the Green Parties and to the critique of this. And I know from discussion thus far that NPOV, understandably, is a very sensitive issue with political articles.In addition, I think that in the discussion hithertoo (above) with Barry, we were not too far from reaching a consensus regarding a separate article. However before I continue this discussion I thought I might invite some more comment on where to go from here. Is it OK if I continue discussion regarding consensus on a separate article? User:JDakins. —Preceding comment was added at 06:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's only 1 person writing 1 article per WP:NPOV#Undue weight's "may not include tiny-minority views at all.". Merge into Green party and the specific parties involved if more reliable third party sources are included. JDAKINS, be careful not to blank sections like you did to the references at Green party. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-10t18:37z

Hi Jeandré. Thanks for that input and for the "tiny minority" reminder. There are other references to instances of Greens being in support of war, in addition to the source article, and I will see if I can locate these. I think this should satisfy concerns regarding the tiny minority viewpoint. Regarding the blanked references, these were in fact originally posted by me. I then blanked these, as I thought it might be premature to post these references whilst the debate over this article was still continuing. The other reason for blanking these references is that at the present time the references aren't actually cited in the article, which I understand they need to be. Hope this explains. If it doesn't, I am more than willing to re-post the references. Thanks again for your suggestion. User:JDakins. —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Cyrus Andiron. The debate is good information, but doesn't warrant a separate article. PKT (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wollop Konteki[edit]

Completely unverifiable. None of the three Google hits indicates anything believable.[37]. Fram (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 16:01, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any reason not to believe this is a hoax? Hiding T 11:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WOuld've speedy'd this obvious nonsense Mbisanz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinq-O[edit]

There is no indication why this game passes WP:PRODUCT. A few links to user-generated content sites are given, but no more. My PROD was contested and the article subbified, but notability is still not established. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable game with no sources Mbisanz (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus . Mr.Z-man 03:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Dunning[edit]

In my opinion, based upon the information in this article, this person does not meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without comment or sourcing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should have been a speedy delete for WP:BIO --Pmedema (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep -- I think this article technically meets the letter of the Notability Guideline but not the spirit. Having said that, however, it appears well-sourced and therefore reliable, so I am open to keeping the article. I note that the author has continued to work on the article. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know if we have a notability guideline for philanthropists, but I think anyone who gives millions of dollars to public institutions, which then get (re-)named for the donor, is per se notable. Presumably users of the Dunning-Hough library (which serves tens of thousands at least) is going to want to know who Dunning was. Kestenbaum 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per A.B. and Kestenbaum: meets notability. Should be rewritten to read less like a vanity piece. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete She gave money to build a museum in a village of 9,000 people. The village considers her one of the 16 people inducted into its Hall of Fame. The top 16 citizens in a community that size are not necessarily notable. Giving a million dollars is not notable philanthropy. It might have been a century ago, but even then I doubt it. This is equivalent to the articles on local road officials and school board members in Louisiana we have been previously deleting here. If the users of the library want to know who she is, they can look at the plaque that is no doubt on the wall, or consult its web site. that's appropriate weight. DGG (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Plymouth was a village once, but it's been a city since 1932, and the library service area (a cluster of four tightly interrelated suburbs) has a census-estimated population of 67,905 (Plymouth city and township, plus Northville city and township). -- Also, when was it decided that $1 million isn't notable philanthropy? I don't have time to go through all the articles in Category:Philanthropists, but the first one I looked at was Caroline Kaufer, who apparently clocked in at about one and a third million. Kestenbaum (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, correction. The catchment area for the Plymouth library is only two of those areas I mentioned, Plymouth city plus Plymouth Township, with a total population of 35,915. Contrary to what I thought, the adjoining Northville area is not included. But that's still a lot more than a "village" of 9,000. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the amount of money constituting notable philanthropy, it relies on the common sense of WPedians--at this time, this is not a significant sum of money as philanthropy goes, and would have gotten her notice in any more substantial place. A library in a town of 30,000 is almost never considered notable in WP, so someone whose main claim to fame is providing the money or one is hardly going to be notable either. DGG (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber (subculture)[edit]

I don't think this is likely to be verifiable. P4k (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No verifiability; the sources seem to be blog-like and there seems to be a lack of citations in the article. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming decent sources can be found- I'm well aware of the cyber subculture and I'm fairly sure they can be found, only I can't look right now. This article also needs to be watched as it seems to have suffered from frequent vandalism. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable, and sources can almost certainly be found. --S.dedalus 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find them feel free to list them here.P4k 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be less glib about it: just asserting that sources can be found without backing that up isn't much of an argument.P4k 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from this Google News search I would assume this is subject is sourcable, though parts of the article should probably be removed. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few references. Searching for "cyber" alone is a bit of a killer, but nevertheless, I'm sure this is a topic worthy of inclusion. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that sources have been added, hopefully there will be more to come. RFerreira (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Entertainment[edit]

reads like an advertisement Rtphokie (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Its almost devoid of information; ~~there are no sources~~, the links are dead, and its written in...Vietnamese? This is an English Wiki. Should be deleted as soon as possible. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out sentence, there is a source (in Vietnamese too). --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN . --DAJF (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, and won't mean much to someone who doesn't understand Vietnamese. 1ForTheMoney 17:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Keir & Sons[edit]

This article is a massive mess with separate short biographies about a man and his sons. It does not satisfy the standard for verifiability, and Google was unable to help. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google Books has one hit, a court proceeding. GHITS in single digits. Article is more of a genealogical directory with some business information. Not enough, even if they did glaze a cathedral. --Dhartung | Talk 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)*Delete- I agree. No verifiability, and Google barely has this man at all. Furthermore, there is barely any introduction about him at all; the article jumps straight into his history. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7 (does not assert significance) and maybe A1 (no context). --Thin boy 00 @50, i.e. 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daudnagar Organization for Rural Development (DORD)[edit]

Poorly formatted article about an organization in India which has no references to back it up. A Google search (without quotes) showed less than 100 hits. Delete for lack of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 12:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it seems this organization is doing important work, there's no claim in the article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch comes up with lots of mentions, but I'm not seeing anything substantial. --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:V. Much of the article appears to be a list of the organization's funding allocations, but horrible formatting prevents this from being clear. Caknuck (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either SPAM or NONSENSE Mbisanz (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claud "Rick" Koerber[edit]

Article about a non-notable "businessman" (scam artist depending on your information) that is written in a distinctly promotional tone. Multiple article claims are unverifiable with the provided references. Article was written by a user who appears to have a vested interest in the subject and his company, which the user has also created four articles about (which were all deleted); possible, if not probable conflict of interest. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been doing research on Rick Koerber and his company FranklinSquires and want to post my findings on Wikipedia. My attempt to create four pages about FranklinSquires was my attempt for people to easily find this page whether they searched “FranklinSquires” “franklinsquires” or “FranklinSquires Companies, LLC.” I also recreated the page “franklinsquires” after it was deleted. My attempt to recreate this page was not to circumvent Wikipedia’s efforts to monitor articles. It was an attempt to comply with their suggestions. I made a few changes to the page and then created it (hence having created four pages about the company) again thinking I had resolved its issues. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn its rules. I’ve also been trying to fix the problems with the Claud “Rick” Koerber page, which I created. I have made substantial changes and do not think it now merits deletion.Bumblebee91 (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) — Bumblebee91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Having three presidential candidates for 2008 (Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) accept Koerber's meeting invitations constitutes a notable person. Referenced by Keyes and Paul on their websites and the factual pictures of Koerber and Giuliani constitutes credible references of his notability.Bumblebee91 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) — Bumblebee91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, it doesn't, actually. According to WP:BIO: "Non valid general criteria: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability." Review WP:BIO for the full list of criteria that make a person notable. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have researched other biographies on Wikipedia and have found many that do not comply with one or more of Wikipedia’s official policy regarding biographies. Rather than having these pages considered for deletion, they have a tag identifying its weakness (i.e. no references, promotional in tone, neutrality dispute, etc.). A few specific examples include 1) Jonathan Kramm, 2) Patrick De Mare 3) Patrick Coye 4) James (Sunny Jim) White 5) James "Rocky" Robinson 6) Benjamin Cavell 7) Benjamin Lascelles 8) Benjamin I. Mitchell 9) Benjamin Kotch and 10) Benjamin Katiyo. If other editors tagged these pages but did not deem them worthy of deletion from Wikipedia, why is the Rick Koerber page deemed for deletion instead of tagging its weaknesses?Bumblebee91 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) — Bumblebee91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Bumblebee91, you should really take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as you seem to be bringing many of them up. The particular one that you just brought up in the above paragraph is called "What about article x?" Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubbify. After stripping off the fat, we'll have an article on someone who may just be notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only thing potentially interesting is some unsourced BLP about possible security violations. DGG (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mooncats[edit]

Band. Claim of notability, had a tour through northwest England. No reliable secondary sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BAND. tomasz. 18:18, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their forthcoming "tour" consists of one date in their home town and two in cities about 100 miles from there. I don't think that counts as a national tour under WP:BAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical objects (TMNT)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the fictional topic fails to utilize secondary sources to provide real-world context for the topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this is a prime candidate to be moved into the TMNT article.--Pmedema (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:10, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cleanup tags show that concerns were not addressed in over 1.5 years, so they may not be addressable at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy DJ[edit]

Notability, fails WP:MUSIC, no sources, etc.... Written tone is questionable, likely promotional Rackabello (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it and it's definately not promotional, I just translated it from the de.wiki page (my German is poor and that's why the translated quality is basically poor). I don't think it fails WP:MUSIC because of this:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: -Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. The song was a charted hit "a song that was a major hit in Europe for the French DJ group Daddy DJ in 2001."

Sorry if I'm doing this discussion page wrong, I'm a newbie.

There are no sources, because I've had trouble finding anyway. The artist is dicussed on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_sitter_i_Ventrilo_och_spelar_DotA

I notice there used to be an article on this artist but it was deleted in 2006. I created this article because I was interested to learn more about the artist, and thought maybe someone would expand the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauzio (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only if the chart positions can be verified -- charting in several countries would definitely pass WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command. Top 40 Charts records three of his songs having charted in several European countries, including hitting Number One in Norway and Sweden with one tune that appears to have been on the charts for almost six months in some cases back in 2001. From the claims in the article, it was also high on other charts. That adds up to an easy keep for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys :) I hope someone adds some more info Kauzio —Preceding comment was added at 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the claims are true, this would definitely meet WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Storm Team[edit]

Fails WP:ORG due to lack of substantial independent sources; none have been added since March; Google hits refer to an (unrelated) basketball team. The article was created by User:Meteorologistdave apparently in WP:COI, see this profile. The PROD process failed for formal reasons, so I am sending the article here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in the absence of any references for notability of this e-mail weather service. DGG (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any resliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. Likely violation of WP:COI, as the SPA User:Meteorologistdave is probably the "David Moran" mentioned repeatedly in the article. Caknuck (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability Mbisanz (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 02:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll up TV[edit]

Previously deleted, not even available yet. Perhaps can be created and expanded if/when item is actually created. Jmlk 1 7 06:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a few articles cited stating that rollable displays are coming out real soon now, but there's nothing which speaks specifically of roll-up televisions. In any case, it's hardly useful to tell the reader that the article's topic doesn't exist. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major magazines and news sources caught up to this possible invention, meets WP:N easily This is a Secret ^account 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily notable. In addition to the four sources cited in the article, a Google news archive search turns up several more. The concept is clearly notable even if no products are yet available. DHowell 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ditto. --Bachcell (talk) 00:42, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 12:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Bendable display technology. This is a general technology that has been around for so long I forget when I first saw it. It is not restricted to TVs so if there are ample sources, rename and expand. If not Delete until there are enough sources to write the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Flexible display redirects to Organic light-emitting diode. How about redirecting there? Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK as the author of this short lil stub, perhaps I can weigh in here, though I really tried not to! I made it from a red link, and created what I could from the sources I found. I'm not a big fan of the name, so I certainly support a rename at the very least (for other ideas than those listed above, I created other redirects to the article which might sound better.) Since it is all sourced information, I also would support a merge and redirect to Organic light-emitting diode#Commercial uses. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border Battle[edit]

No reliable evidence that this use of a common term is in any way widespread or notable. Seems to be limited to a local use, otherwise the term is used with many meanings unrelated to this article (use in politicals, combat, etc.) Pastordavid (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the concept is Sports rivalry, which is an already existing article. Ordinarily, this would be a redirect, but the phrase "border battle" is used in numerous contexts, and does not actually appear to be in common usage to refer to sports rivalry. -- Whpq 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear violation of WP:OR with an extremely narrow regional view. Caknuck (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Cyrodiil[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just give him a chance to copy and save the text so he can atleast post it on a video game site, this guy sure put a lot of time into all of these edits. Regardless, it doesn't fit into an encyclopedia. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (rationale copied from Creatures of Morrowind AFD). Fails WP:FICT, these are magnified in-universe details which give undue weight to a very minor aspect of the Elder Scrolls series. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing these creatures in detail within the article, it is extremely unlikely that the fauna from an RPG, no matter how popular and important the genre it is, will be covered in detail by the reliable secondary sources upon which we depend to source and write articles, thus notability is not established. All popular games or series of games will have fansites, wikis and other resources devoted to them, this series is no exception, the details should be there.Someone another 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:FICT. Fin ©™ 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Oblivion[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (copying rationale from creatures of Morrowind). Fails WP:FICT, these are magnified in-universe details which give undue weight to a very minor aspect of the Elder Scrolls series. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing these creatures in detail within the article, it is extremely unlikely that the fauna from an RPG, no matter how popular and important the genre it is, will be covered in detail by the reliable secondary sources upon which we depend to source and write articles, thus notability is not established. All popular games or series of games will have fansites, wikis and other resources devoted to them, this series is no exception, the details should be there.Someone another 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:NOT etc. Fin ©™ —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of Morrowind[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. (talk) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FICT, these are magnified in-universe details which give undue weight to a very minor aspect of the Elder Scrolls series. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing these creatures in detail within the article, it is extremely unlikely that the fauna from an RPG, no matter how popular and important the genre it is, will be covered in detail by the reliable secondary sources upon which we depend to source and write articles, thus notability is not established. All popular games or series of games will have fansites, wikis and other resources devoted to them, this series is no exception, the details should be there.Someone another 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of creatures. User:Krator (t c) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and added unreferenced tag. --JForget 00:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ericsson T28[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. Insufficient references exist to build a viable Wikipedia article. {{prod}} removed without comment, so we're at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes this article less notable than the myriads of other cellphone articles? Insufficient references is not valid reason for deletion. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Insufficient references is a valid reason for removal. Without verifiable references, the article is original research and can't stay here. If there's too few sources available to make enough references, which I believe to be the case for this topic, the topic isn't notable. Either way, this topic doesn't establish its own notability in a verifiable way. -- Mikeblas 15:34, 4 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, Mailer Diablo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- This article was of course of suitable length to be kept but the following items should be done by wikipedians whom are either users of the phone/ex-users/telecommunications experts or any person whom does had a general and accurate knowledge of the phone.

To create more devised information such as features and something more.

To create a list of all the specifications of the phone.

Add in photos.

Create references which are notable.

Above all- the page does not deem so poorly created to be assessed to be deleted. If not, all of he stubs should be deleted above all and wikipedia would be much of a hollow encyclopedia.--Quek157 14:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Edison 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after reading Quek157's comment I say keep. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Miremare 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a properly sourced article with greatly reduced content as proposed by Judgesurreal777 on the TES project page. Why delete all this content first and then start new collection articles? I'm working on one in my userspace. mensch • t 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as preferable to individual articles on each.DGG (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Starting to piss me off a bit, because this is the best alternative to having individual articles. This is your solution Judgesurreal if you want to be the hero out of this you've should just turn this article into a GA or FA, I know you could, and don't give me any shit about how you can't because there aren't any notability references floating around the net, you know that isn't true. It would be about as time consuming as starting 100 AFD debates. Oh and for the record this is the best encyclopedic TES info on the net, unfortunately contrary to what others think, UESP isn't a storyline wiki, it's a game wiki.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am MORE than willing to keep ANY, and in fact, ALL OF THESE ARTICLES, if you can prove to me, and everyone else in these discussions, that they pass wikipedia policy of notability. Just find me a few, and I will happily withdraw this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my belief that this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. It appears that 5 of the groups listed in the template have been deleted. How then can these more minor orgs be notable? (rhetorical question). Mbisanz (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should keep: the contents are worthy of an inclusion in an article, and whether to do it as a separate article or part of the main one is an editing decision. DGG (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without any notability, it will probably warrant two-three sentences, not this huge article..Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is actually quite relevant to the subject matter. The entire game series is about organizations, alliances etc. So I think that it would be best if this article was kept. The fact that organizations are so important to the series suggests that this article is necessary, especially since most the organizations don't have the clout to stand on their own and need a compilation article like this to hold them up.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without notability, nothing is "holding the article up"; if its so important to the series as you claim, please produce some references to verify notability, and remember that the organizations of Elder Scrolls are already covered in the plot section of each Elder Scroll game article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine what're looking for in terms of notability links?TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at any one of the dozens of AFD's I have participated in in the last two weeks, many in which I have already EXPLAINED THE POLICY TO YOU, and I will not do it again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no need to shout, everyone is paying attention, we just don't agree with your interpretation--and if you think you need to shout to convince us, it might even have the opposite effect :) DGG (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging my question, just give me a concise example of what it is you want and I'll try to help.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is WP:FICTION, learn it, love it, live it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it, gone over it and still I'm just asking what kind of notability link you are looking for since you are so picky.TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my own private standards, the policy on fictions will suffice. Perhaps something from one of the creators/writers of the story or developers of the game on how they made it, what these organizations were based on, stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up. TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview that stresses this importance of guilds in the game. [38] It is one of several community interviews I just remembered had some good stuff in them.TostitosAreGross (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You found a little something, good. We need like two more so we have "multiple" sources so we can safely withdraw...look in there and see if there is anything else, cause that could be a good source you have, good job. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another page from developers that lays out the fundamentals of the game. It would be useful in showing the importance of the factions and setting (Cyrodiil, which unfortunately is gone already). [39] among other things. 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TostitosAreGross (talk • contribs)

That's not really a good one as its just gameplay information....look in those developer interviews, see if there is anything there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview that is pretty good. It mentions that some inspirations for some Guild missions are from Agatha Christie and the developer talks about his favorite organizations [40].TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, you have done it! You have established notability in at minimum a limited sense, and we should add this information to the article and close this. Great, great job!! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Notability has been established for this article, and that was the contention of its nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- comment, delete Disagree. This still isn't notable outside of the series. Only Elder Scrolls players would know of this. Hence, it should be a part of the main Elder Scrolls article. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that matters, it has been withdrawn by nominator.TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some basic demonstration of notability has been established, it isn't perfect but it can be worked on. If the article is still straining after a lengthy period of time we can look at it again. The removal of unnecessary location articles means there's less to focus on and increases the chances of this article getting more attention. I'll have a good look for sources myself in the future, but I'm a little snowed under ATM. Someone another (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on Judgesurreal, this is starting to become quite ridiculus. Get off your high horse and let us have our articles for our research. You don't own wikipedia and you sure as hell shouldn't own what we can and can't access. Wikipedia happens to be one of the best (or was one of the best sources until you destroyed it) for elder scrolls information. Just do a search on Google, more then fifty percent of the time a Wikipedia article will be at the top of the search engine! After all, isn't this supposes to be a place for centralized information so we don't have to go on the five year journey to learn a thing or two about house Dres, find out if Blackwood stole a hist from Black Marsh, etc...? This article isn't hurting anybody, and more then likely, it's helping a few of us. Please read this that I posted at the Black Marsh deletion discusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Marsh

Good day

The Grey Wizard (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, great job paying attention, the article was already withdrawn, so it will be kept...oh and all that stuff you just said? Pure ignorance of Wikipedia policies, read these; WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. For those advocating merge, the target doesn't exist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septim bloodline[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a single section of Characters of Oblivion per WP:VG consensus. User:Krator (t c) 12:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons listed above. Rockhound (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To very small part of main article. Mbisanz (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above; as Characters of Oblivion has been deleted there seems to be no appropriate target for a merge. The article has been transwikied to the Elder Scrolls Wikia. Miremare 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons above and deletion of characters article. Pagra shtak 17:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacts of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is something for the TES wiki... but not for wikipedia Yzmo ^talk 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the TES wiki would appropriately have articles on each individual one; we appropriately would limit ourselves to this sort of summary article. DGG (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please demonstrate how this passes WP:FICTION with out of universe references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of fictional items. User:Krator (t c) 12:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep~~ We should still keep: while none of the terms are individually likely to be notable enough for an article, but together they make a reasonable one; as a split from what would otherwise be an excessivley long single article on the game. DGG (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have accidentally double voted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)--fixed--what with all these many repetitive article discussions on the same issues, it's easy to lose track. My apologies. DGG (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, happened to me too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world notability, no out-of-universe content. Pagra shtak 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Problems with this articles flagged by the nominator have not been addressed. BLACKKITE 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Rock[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability outside of the game; no out-of-universe context. Marasmusine 15:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big surprise. There is an information base at imperial library, and it is the setting for one of the games, which makes it notable enough.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, as WP:FICTION explains. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your definition of a reliable secondary source? TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the featured articles on fictional stuff Master Chief (Halo), Jack Sparrow, Link (Legend of Zelda), or Padme Amidala; the whole section where the concept was developed is linked to articles that are interviews with creators of the fictional thing in question, or to overviews of the creation process, stuff like that. It is these Elder Scroll articles inability to be made to look like these articles that is the problem. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly expect the same level of media links for this as you would from Master Chief and Link, two video game media darlings and Jack Sparrow? Come on, you can't expect that kind of notability from this, there is notability but not enough to rival Master Chief. It is notable enough to stay here but I'm more concerned that Wikipedia gains nothing from losing this article and is better off with this tidbit of information. Is suppose you still want your notability link, but I'm not sure specifically what, like media articles or what? TostitosAreGross (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument here is exactly that of the nominator. We can't expect the same level of notability from High Rock, because it simply isn't that notable. Thus, Wikipedia should not have a separate article for it. Pagra shtak 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that only articles that are huge international phenomenons like Jack Sparrow and Master Chief are notable. That is inherently ridiculous, not everything in the world is an international video game poster child like the Chief. It's still notable, just not featured in Time magazine as an example of growing video game markets.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we have articles on World of Final Fantasy VIII, which has never achieved a huge level of fan following but there is still enough for a Good and eventually featured article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the elder scrolls series never achieved a huge level of fan following? There are many perfectly acceptable articles on other fiction series that have a similar level of notability. TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls is notable, yes. That's why we have The Elder Scrolls. However, this particular part of that universe is not notable by itself. An article about the world of TES would most likely be permissible, but tens of articles about each piece individually is not. Pagra shtak 23:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A locations of TES page is neccesary because some location articles really don't stand up on their own, some other pages like this one and especially Black Marsh are of a standard of quality that allows them to have individual articles. I'll give you an example, Races of The Elder Scrolls is a fine article and compilation of the many races. Unfortunatly Judge wants to delete that too but that's another issue, it mentions Argonians as a race but mostly points towards the Argonian individual article. So a compilation article works and if you happen to have a high quality sub-article, then you should simply include the link and a brief summary on the compilation page. Oh and by the way Black Marsh just got deleted, fuck me sideways, that was a good one too.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, there is a precedent for this. Most of the articles concerning different aspects of the Elder Scrolls games (including locations like this one) have already been deleted recently, and this one is nothing new. I suppose that if you wanted to know about this kind of stuff, you would have to do research outside of Wikipedia, since none of this seems to be regarded with high importance on Wikipedia. Comandante42 (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Tamriel, This is a description of an aspect of a game as defined by it plot, characters, etc. It is written in universe in the style of a guide, manual, or fanfic. Refering to policy WP:NOT#GUIDE (not a manual to things, WP:NOT#PLOT (not a summary of fictional writings), therefore, I believe that it should be deleted.-- Mbisanz (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this, deletion is the LAST option not the FIRST. Wikipedia guidelines are explicit when it comes to this matter, efforts for improvement should be made. You know this article isn't fatally flawed, those kinds of articles are noticeable from a mile away. So please try to be a contributor not a destroyer.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree that deletion should be reserved for articles that fail to meet the coverage of the encyclopedia. The issue of fatally flawed to me simply means that this article is not so fatally flawed as to warrant a Speedy Deletion. Rather, as it covers a topic that may be better merged with another article or which in another context (say Endor from from star wars) might be notable. As it is already mentioned to the extent of its notability within the [41] Elder Scrolls article, I continue with my belief for High Rock's deletion. Further, I am not an article destroyer. If you examine my record, I have created several articles and worked extensivly to improve the spelling/formatting of hundreds of articles to make them more presentable Mbisanz (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point actually, when it comes to articles that are a tad basic like this one. As for Cyrodiil, that's just an outrage because it was a good article. But here is my idea, use the reference at the bottom to add citations, thus improving the quality, then maybe expand the article. Then on the Locations in Elder Scrolls page just put in brief summary with a link to this page. The same worked for Argonian and Races of Oblivion.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you reference deleted material, and I'm not an admin and thus can't see it, I can't judge the situation. I'd want to see it covered in the mane TES article to the point that it is decided via split that it should be split into the Locations in Elder Scrolls and then a further split to demonstrate it is notable, thorough coverage, and not merely an inuniverse manual. Given that I am not confident it would ever reach that stage, I'm keeping my vote at Delete. Mbisanz (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm not referncing deleted material. I have better examples, basically if we bring our page to a level of quality like argonian we wouldn't be in a tight jam. You are basically keeping your "vote" (it's not a vote) at delete because you don't think anybody will improve it. Bottom line is that is bullshit, you can't want something deleted because you don't think it'll get any better, as in you don't trust editors to do a good job.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) ok, don't know how that formatting error happened, but this edit should fix it. And if I truly believe that there will never be enough notable or relevant information out there on this topic to make it worthy of an article, then I can maintain that belief and my further belief that it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, I'd refer you to WP:PRACTICAL which permits polling in AfD issues, WP:POLLS which describes how polling is an integral part of determining consensus on an AfD. Again I cannot stress WP:NOT#GUIDE which states that articles that ... includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes are not to be part of the encyclopedia. Without the inuniverse game guide information, I do not believe there will ever be enough information to form an article, let alone an article that meets notability. You reference argonian, which in my opinion goes into far too much detail and has NFCC issues with its image. That being said, the article is sourced to such a great degree that its importance is shown. I do not believe the information exists to do so with this article. In almost 2 years of existence, only 1 source has been added. Even throughout this lenghty AfD, only 1 source exists. From the content of the article, I feel it could be summarized better within the home article. Mbisanz (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, the Argonian article is about a relevant to the series as this is. It could be sourced pretty easily. If polling was so important I don't see why Cyrodiil was deleted, the discussion was ongoing and ties Keep v delete. I don't really see this as a game-guide, in fact it doesn't really seem like a game guide at all. The central problem around this article is the In-universe style, a problem so laughably easy to fix, it boggle my mind why this is under afd. Calling this a game guide twenty times doesn't make it one. Unless it is telling you how to play a certain part of the game then it isn't really a guide. The guide rule is made to prevent people from right something like "How to beat Halo 2 on legendary" pages, because that is quite clearly a game guide.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont understand why it was deleted because you refuse to accept WP:FICTION as policy, and not as an opinion that can be argued away, and by now you know that the article cannot have its sourcing issues brushed away, but needs to be addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non-notable information should be deleted only when other options have been exhausted."(From WP:FICTION) There, it doesn't appear like we've exhausted every option now does it?TostitosAreGross (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been going through this at AfD for 11 days now by my count(twice the norm). There is still only 1 source. 1 source is not substantial coverage. Mbisanz (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding my point, has every other option been exhausted? Have you tried to find another source?TostitosAreGross (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuhlecain[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no references. —dv82matt 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (unanimous) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsinium[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability established outside of the game universe. --Scottie_theNerd 23:36, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; no notability outside Elder Scrolls. Fin ©™ 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (unanimous) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potente Savirien-Chorak[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valenwood[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No established notability outside of the game universe. In fact, there's barely any notability established in the game universe. --Scottie_theNerd 23:41, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:FICT, etc. Fin ©™ 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into some sort of TES locations page, which would be more convenient and ten times more notable.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Unsourced original research. Notability not established. There doesn't appear to be much point trying to transwiki from the comments below but if anyone wants to give it a go they can give me a nudge on my talk and I will temporarily undelete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion (dimension)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 16:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to The Unofficial Elderscrolls Pages or Obliviowiki instead of deletion. I have not done this before myself but it should meet the objectives of all those casting a delete vote and preserve any effort expended so far for content relevant elsewhere. -Onceler (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the record, UESP is more of a game guide wiki, not storyline related. As for the keep, this article should be improved not deleted.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Obliviowiki instead of deletion. Obliviowiki has an article on the plane/dimension of Oblivion. However, the entire content of the article on Wikipedia could be removed and created as Oblivion (dimension) on Obliviowiki tagged for future merge with Oblivion. This would preserve the effort/content from the Wikipedia article into a clearinghouse of information on Oblivion which is what Obliviowiki tends to be. .digamma (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not an Elder Scrolls wiki. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to demonstrate notability, fails WP:FICT. I had look at both of the wikis linked by Onceler and the information was pretty much already covered.Someone another (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (unanimous) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostfence[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They really ought to make a video game encyclopedia for all these articles, there's too many on wikipedia. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No sources. —dv82matt 12:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cats(The Red 2)[edit]

non-notable band Against3 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has sources on the bottom. Terribly needs a cleanup. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an obvious WP:SPAM, surprised it wasn't speedyied Mbisanz (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD#A7 - non-notable band. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-IV[edit]

nonnotable band Against3 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this should not be deleted!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.11.101 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable and unsourced. --Thin boy 00 @61, i.e. 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. No evidence of passing WP:BAND. Caknuck (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Mbisanz (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local broadcast system[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Local broadcast system

This appears to be a random original synthesis of disparate topics such as karaoke machines, DVD rental stations, and a cry for the Montreal forum to be wrapped in display monitors, as well as a plug for Sony-branded karaoke DVDs. Taken as a whole, the article doesn't make a lot of sense, and given the lack of possible external references (frex, a Google search for "Local broadcast system" turns up nothing using the phrase in the manner used in the article), I don't think it can be fixed. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH, a whole bunch of ideas wrapped up in one big bundle of original research. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced original research. Searches for the term "local broadcast system" show no supporting sources. Qualifying it with karaoke turns up only this wiki article. -- Whpq 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked the first time around, and couldn't find any sources, too. I'd look for alternative names for the subject, but it's hard to determine what the subject of the article actually is. The pictures are hardly informative. One appears to be a picture of a window with some curtains behind it. This is either yet another inept hoax, or an article that is so badly written that it is irredemable and impossible to fix. Delete. Uncle G 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Although the discussion here is spare, deletion succeeds on strength of argument. As it stands, this content barely avoids CSD A3 for link-lists. There is a minimal, unsourced introduction, together with the list of providers savvy enough to link themselves to Wikipedia: this is not what an article is supposed to be. A real rewrite on the topic is welcome, but this is a linkspam-haven for the moment, and it is in the best interest of the Project to remove it forthwith. Xoloz (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback comment system[edit]

Does not assert notability. No sources. Seems like a spam trap. Torc2 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. Torc2 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Article still has no sources or notability and is still doing nothing but attracting spam links. Torc2 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources and spam links are editing concerns. Maybe a transwiki to Wikitionary Mbisanz (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The burden of proof of notability/verifiability is on those who support keeping. No sources were provided, even after a relisting and the article is almost speedy deletable as WP:CSD#A1 (almost no context). Mr.Z-man 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Feedback Protocol[edit]

Does not assert notability. Article really doesn't have any substance. No sources, etc. Torc2 (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand important concept. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important enough that it's been sitting in this state, without any references or sources and with absolutely nothing linked to it for two and a half years? Torc2 (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are con — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cburnett (talk • contribs) 21:44, November 30, 2007 (UTC)

I am con? Are you stalking me by going through the AfDs I have and voting keep? Torc2 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. What about this article is notable? Torc2 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY, which clearly states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — Satori Son 14:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dikeou collection[edit]

This collection (which I presume refers to a gallery) is not notable, and its notable is not asserted/established within the article. WP:N, WP:NOR. Avruch ^Talk 23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable enough to catch the atttention of USA Today. -- Whpq 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a notable institution Mbisanz (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was GFDL requires history merge to correct name of Stan Jagla, which may be AfD'ed afresh if anyone wishes. Everyone should note the lesson learned: DO NOT write an article on a subject if you aren't even sure of his correct name. Xoloz (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jagla[edit]

Unelected local politician. While mentioned in coverage of the election, I don't believe he passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians. Failed {{prod}} as the only contributor to the article, a WP:SPA, objected. Toddst1 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO more "unelected" as Jill Morganthaler, who has never held an elected political office of any kind. Your augments are spurious and with out merit considering the fact both, by virtue for running for major federal office is notable. I have shown more than enough cites, by major newspapers and media to justify the fact that Stan Jagla is just as notable as Jill. I feel it is balanced and necessary to that have the bios of both, quantified and on the ballet for Democratic nominee for Congress. IT STAYS. HAL is not IBM 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Redirect to article about the Illinois 6th Congressional district. The observation that "Wikipedia is not the news" comes to mind, and it's often invoked when someone feels the need to write an article about a car crash or a murder that happened on, say, December 3, 2007. Granted, a congressional election is important and being a candidate in the Democratic primary is important. But is it encylopedic? Do we need articles about Steve Jagla or Jill Morgenthaler at this point in their careers? If this were an article about someone running for a parliament seat in France, I don't think people would care. It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. Mandsford 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, only one candidate gets the entry and gets "gushed" over rather then a fair and balanced treatment, by wikipeida, of this major upcoming primary, which is a little less then two months away. But thats not notable enough in the strange land of wikipedia? What is the reason for wikipida, is it knowledge or is it just a tool of partisan operatives? This goes the heart of credibility and innate fairness of wikipeida to be non-bias and balanced. If Stan Jagla entry is deleted by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and only the Jill Morgenthaler article is left standing, then the facts speak and wikipeida is really just a tool for partisan politics.HAL is not IBM 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone should "nominate" Jill Morgenthaler as well. If its someone other than the nom of this article, then we can have a primary of sorts, so that whoever gets the most "keep" votes gets to keep their article until after the primary. And for the benefit of those humorless fidgets preparing to write a long response about how Wikipedia is not a vote, I am "joking". Mandsford 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't know how, but I will nominate the Jill Morgnthaler article for deletion. Bear in mind if the Stan Jagla is removed, then it's almost automatic that the Jill Morgenthaler article should be removed as well for the same reasons, logic and fairness which common sense would suggest.HAL is not IBM 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. ---User:Mandsford

Articles on Illinois' 6th congressional district and Illinois's 6th congressional district election, 2006 already exist. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stan Jagla, the actual name of the Roselle business man in question[42]. Speedily delete or redirect to Stan Jagla since User:HAL is not IBM has reproduced the content at Stan Jagla rather than moving the article as was requested. References to the ample media coverage of Stan Jagla should be added to the article. Author of the article may want to get his facts straight before having Wikipedia servers and its mirrors distribute false information. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is Stan is on the ballot for Democratic nominee for congress. Thats a Cold, bold face fact. Fact,it would be fundamentally unfair and smacking of bias to have the Jill Morgenthaler retained, and the Stan Jagla article removed. That will be unacceptable and indicative of bias and POV pushing if it should happen. Both candidates have never held elective public office and both are notable for being on the February 5th 2008 primary ballot. Now Goethean is suggesting retaining the Jill Morgenthaler article, fine. But, For him to advocate the removal or blending the Stan Jagla article makes self evident, the agenda Goethean has and NPOV information and fairness, in this case is not one of them.
Finally here is some of the media coverage Stan Jaglar as received, listed here for the satisfaction of Goethean, the Jill advocate.
Steve Jagla has received significant press coverage to qualify.
Chicago Tribune
More Tribune coverage
Pioneer Press
US Chamber of Congress
Rollcall
Daily Herald
Daily Herald
So, based on wikipeida policy Steve Jagla is notable enough to be on wikipeida and needs to be retained. Thank YouHAL is not IBM (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and read what I typed before freaking out. I said that the Steve Jagla article should be speedily deleted because you have reproduced the content of the Steve Jagla article at Stan Jagla and besides, Steve isn't the subject's name. It's Stan. I hope that this is sufficiently clear. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to move to Stan Jagla as per the suggestion of of goethean This seems reasonable as long as the Stan Jagla article is still tied to the Jill Morgenthaler article.HAL is not IBM (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orange you glad Mailer Diablo didn't say ":Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached."? I am. Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable unless he wins the primary. I accept that a major party candidate for a seat in the national legislature is notable, but not just one who has not yet become the actual candidate.DGG (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to List of characters in the Star Fox series. Marasmusine (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wolf (Star Fox)[edit]

This article is just an in-universe regurgitation of plot and character sections from various Star Fox games, and has no notability or referencing on its own. As such, its just pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is just part of, I don't know, 30 odd articles, detailing each character in the Star Fox world. Here is the link. List of characters in the Star Fox series. scope_creep (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I think it is proper to redirect it to the List of characters in the Star Fox series page. 1yodsyo1 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete per 1yodsyo1. List of characters in the Star Fox series already does a much better job, so no merging necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfen (Star Fox series)[edit]

Wow, how trivial can you get? This article is just an in-universe regurgitation of the plot of several Star Fox games, and has no notability outside of that article. As such, this is just duplication of that material in an unencyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? What's wrong with leaving it up, the main Star Fox article doesn't cover the details of stuff like this. And tell that TTN asshole to stop merging every single SF related-article with the SF page, it has no relevance to anything described in the merged pages. 69.238.168.72 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The details are trivial junk that have no place in a quality encyclopedia. And user TTN is a fantastic contributer to wikipedia, and if you continue this uncivil tone you will be blocked, clear? And by the way, anon, if you want to argue about wikipedia policy, cite the policy which supports your position, otherwise your opinion is irrelevent. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable item from the video game. A brief mention in the parent article would be enough, but even that is debatable. ELIMINATORJR 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the fictional topic fails to utilize secondary sources to provide real-world context, which is necessary to determine the topic's notability. Without doing this, it's merely in-universe information, a violation of WP:PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Whether or not this needs moving, redirecting or merging is an editing decision that doesn't need AFD to decide. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo-Guk[edit]

Possible hoax. See discussion at WP:VP/A#What happens now? and talk page. Note: I know nothing about this topic - I'm listing it for another user. At very best, it is an unreferenced article. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. It's obscure, but it should have its own page and be expanded. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%EA%B2%80%EB%AA%A8%EC%9E%A0+%EA%B3%A0%EA%B5%AC%EB%A0%A4%EA%B5%AD&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.247.237 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article is warranted; the one currently there needs considerable clean-up and sourcing - and perhaps even renaming. The best brief English account that google brings up (on terms like "Goguryeo restoration" and "Koguryo resistance" rather than "Goguryeo-Guk") is this (scroll down to "Anseung" or "670") --Paularblaster (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax, so listing reasoning is false. Needs cleanup. Isn't WikiProject Korea already working on this article? It should be renamed to Bodeok, as the more common name. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly not a hoax. Any content problems or possible renaming should be dealt with by the usual editing process and discussion on the article's talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Goguryeo#Revival movements, if a knowledgeable editor can be found to do the job. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore Education Society Kishora Kendra School[edit]

No claim of notability. The page itself is apparently semi-protected, with a history of vandalism. Montchav (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I live in the city of Bangalore, where this school is located and it is fairly well known among the populace of the city. I have cleaned up the article now and have provided citations to reliable mainstream newspapers to assert notability. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleaned up by Amarrg. Plenty of news mentions. utcursch | talk 12:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is notable, major school that educates through to pre-university. The article includes multiple, reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable Noroton (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but cleanup, please. Reso lute 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incisive Media[edit]

Fails to establish notability. Article a little bit 'spammy' . Hammer1980·^talk 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I disagree with the nom with regard to notability: this sounds like a big-box publishing house. However, the inordinate number of redlinks in the article warrants a thorough cleanup, maybe even a rewrite from scratch. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a notable company. ft.com search reports 102 articles mentioning it. Matt 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.115.128 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Noteable company, horrid article. Needs extensive cleanup and is borderline spam. Majoreditor (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed, the article has a number of shortcomings. At the moment it's a dry list of facts that needs fleshing out, and the numerous red links – some to topics that will probably never have their own articles – make it look kind of "broken". But, assuming that the facts are accurate (I haven't checked but I don't see anyone disputing this), I don't see why it is spammy. Wouldn't we expect the finished article to list the company's important deals and its most important titles? Even the PR-speak claim that "the firm has grown quickly" seems in this case to be amply borne out by the list of acquisitions that follows. Matt 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Delete or merge with APAX. Seems very spammy and not that notable. Can always be recreated if it is notableMbisanz (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family in Hinduism[edit]

Article is original research and primarily an essay. Anything of import could be merged with other articles on Hinduism. Delete TheRingess (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It should be merged with another article. Sorry about the box.YVNP (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation. This could be a good topic for an article, but this is little more than someone’s opinion. Delete as original research. --S.dedalus 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be sources for this topic, but at the moment, this is unsourced, point of view material coming from someone explaining the values that they find important in their religious faith. Mandsford 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was GFDL requires history merge to correct name of Stan Jagla, which may be AfD'ed afresh if anyone wishes. Everyone should note the lesson learned: DO NOT write an article on a subject if you aren't even sure of his correct name. Xoloz (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jagla[edit]

Unelected local politician. While mentioned in coverage of the election, I don't believe he passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians. Failed {{prod}} as the only contributor to the article, a WP:SPA, objected. Toddst1 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO more "unelected" as Jill Morganthaler, who has never held an elected political office of any kind. Your augments are spurious and with out merit considering the fact both, by virtue for running for major federal office is notable. I have shown more than enough cites, by major newspapers and media to justify the fact that Stan Jagla is just as notable as Jill. I feel it is balanced and necessary to that have the bios of both, quantified and on the ballet for Democratic nominee for Congress. IT STAYS. HAL is not IBM 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Redirect to article about the Illinois 6th Congressional district. The observation that "Wikipedia is not the news" comes to mind, and it's often invoked when someone feels the need to write an article about a car crash or a murder that happened on, say, December 3, 2007. Granted, a congressional election is important and being a candidate in the Democratic primary is important. But is it encylopedic? Do we need articles about Steve Jagla or Jill Morgenthaler at this point in their careers? If this were an article about someone running for a parliament seat in France, I don't think people would care. It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. Mandsford 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, only one candidate gets the entry and gets "gushed" over rather then a fair and balanced treatment, by wikipeida, of this major upcoming primary, which is a little less then two months away. But thats not notable enough in the strange land of wikipedia? What is the reason for wikipida, is it knowledge or is it just a tool of partisan operatives? This goes the heart of credibility and innate fairness of wikipeida to be non-bias and balanced. If Stan Jagla entry is deleted by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and only the Jill Morgenthaler article is left standing, then the facts speak and wikipeida is really just a tool for partisan politics.HAL is not IBM 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone should "nominate" Jill Morgenthaler as well. If its someone other than the nom of this article, then we can have a primary of sorts, so that whoever gets the most "keep" votes gets to keep their article until after the primary. And for the benefit of those humorless fidgets preparing to write a long response about how Wikipedia is not a vote, I am "joking". Mandsford 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't know how, but I will nominate the Jill Morgnthaler article for deletion. Bear in mind if the Stan Jagla is removed, then it's almost automatic that the Jill Morgenthaler article should be removed as well for the same reasons, logic and fairness which common sense would suggest.HAL is not IBM 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. ---User:Mandsford

Articles on Illinois' 6th congressional district and Illinois's 6th congressional district election, 2006 already exist. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stan Jagla, the actual name of the Roselle business man in question[43]. Speedily delete or redirect to Stan Jagla since User:HAL is not IBM has reproduced the content at Stan Jagla rather than moving the article as was requested. References to the ample media coverage of Stan Jagla should be added to the article. Author of the article may want to get his facts straight before having Wikipedia servers and its mirrors distribute false information. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is Stan is on the ballot for Democratic nominee for congress. Thats a Cold, bold face fact. Fact,it would be fundamentally unfair and smacking of bias to have the Jill Morgenthaler retained, and the Stan Jagla article removed. That will be unacceptable and indicative of bias and POV pushing if it should happen. Both candidates have never held elective public office and both are notable for being on the February 5th 2008 primary ballot. Now Goethean is suggesting retaining the Jill Morgenthaler article, fine. But, For him to advocate the removal or blending the Stan Jagla article makes self evident, the agenda Goethean has and NPOV information and fairness, in this case is not one of them.
Finally here is some of the media coverage Stan Jaglar as received, listed here for the satisfaction of Goethean, the Jill advocate.
Steve Jagla has received significant press coverage to qualify.
Chicago Tribune
More Tribune coverage
Pioneer Press
US Chamber of Congress
Rollcall
Daily Herald
Daily Herald
So, based on wikipeida policy Steve Jagla is notable enough to be on wikipeida and needs to be retained. Thank YouHAL is not IBM (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down and read what I typed before freaking out. I said that the Steve Jagla article should be speedily deleted because you have reproduced the content of the Steve Jagla article at Stan Jagla and besides, Steve isn't the subject's name. It's Stan. I hope that this is sufficiently clear. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to move to Stan Jagla as per the suggestion of of goethean This seems reasonable as long as the Stan Jagla article is still tied to the Jill Morgenthaler article.HAL is not IBM (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orange you glad Mailer Diablo didn't say ":Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached."? I am. Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable unless he wins the primary. I accept that a major party candidate for a seat in the national legislature is notable, but not just one who has not yet become the actual candidate.DGG (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Martina[edit]

NN, Dutch U-19 internationals and not yet entered the first team to made any professional debut Matthew_hk t c 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 12:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, has not made the required appearances in a League under notability guidelines for football players. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 12:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no professional appearances. --Angelo 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per above. Punkmorten (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Pee Jay 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12 by User:Doc glasgow. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco Controls Incorporated[edit]

Notability of this corporation is unclear (WP:CORP). The article has survived the PROD process, but while notability is asserted in the article, it is still not established due to lack of independent sources. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the prior prod; This ad-like article is inadequately sourced and describes normal business attributes. It does not reach corporate notability. --Stormbay 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Farmers Market[edit]

A local farmer's market that does not seem to meet WP:CORP. No independent sources are given. My PROD was contested, and the article wasfilled with copyright violations from the organization's home page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it handily passes the Google test with 8260 hits. The article has probably received little attention precisely because it tends to be a grass roots organization. It is of considerable notability to the area given the difficulty of finding a parking place both for my auto and my bicycle, and the crowded walkways at almost all hours the market is open. It is also mentioned frequently (usually positively) at other farmers markets in Newport, Hillsdale, Vancouver, Boring, and Sandy. —EncMstr 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conditional Keep - if any 1 single (non-incedental or advertorial) Ext. link or Cite can be provided other than the Market's official website. Otherwise it fail WP:RS and need to be Deleted Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, copyvio was removed (by me), then EncMstr added several third-party sources showing notability since the above nom. Katr67 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep Those arguing for keeping seem to have made decent arguments for why these articles are useful and encyclopedic. I don't however see anything closely resembling enough of a consensus to call this a straight keep. Also, it would be strongly appreciated if the people favoring keeping these would take steps to make sure that the relevant exonyms are sourced since presently the lists contain few or no sources. There may also be a concern about original research which should be dealt with (since this wasn't brought up much in the debate below I am not weighing it in the closing decision). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of European exonyms[edit]

Transwiki this page and all its subpages: Dutch exonyms, Ukrainian exonyms, etc.. Aslo scrutinize the category:Exonyms for transwiktion: A textbook case of wiktionary: nonthing but translaions of toponyms into varuious languages. `'Míkka >t 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion below I am adding AfD notices to all subarticles. `'Míkka >t 17:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the also nominated pages by country:

Votes cast before I made my all intentions clear[edit]

Delete: The page. Nothing here but a duplicate of what's already included here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu missed the major point: all its subpages which belong to wiktionary. `'Míkka >t 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't have any subpages. Are you talking about the articles that are listed within? If so, you need to make a formal AfD discussion for each, perhaps a group AfD. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicative. JJL (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu missed the major point: all its subpages which belong to wiktionary. `'Míkka >t 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete all including the downstream pages, which all (as of this moment) lack {{afd1}} templates to make them valid nominees. Tedious but necessary for good procedural closes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has been informed of this, and, as you know ^{(pointing out for others)} unless the AfD templates are / were added within a reasonable time from the start of this discussion, they cannot be included in this debate, although, there may be other means for deletion, such as WP:IAR or WP:SNOW. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further votes[edit]

Split vote: Delete this article (List of European exonyms), since we already have Category:Exonyms, and that's a better way to organize this kind of info. But Keep all the sub-articles (from Albanian exonyms, all the way to Ukrainian exonyms) as being useful, and of encyclopedic value. Turgidson (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not an argument. A dictionary is just as useful, and word translations belong to wiktionary. `'Míkka >t 16:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Comment"'. Thanks, Mikka for the explanation. Sorry, I'm not well-versed in the lingo that seems to be needed in order to defend a category or list for deletion (see the Erdős number debacle...) All I can say is that these lists of exonyms by language make sense to me, are useful, fit well in the WP project, are interesting, are good to have in this format, they make for a better encyclopedia, etc. What else do you want me to say, in order for my opinion to be considered valid, and not thrown away, as it was in the E-number Berezina (I'm using the term in the French way)? Any indication on what works and what does not around here in this kind of debates? Alas, I'm still totally mystified. Turgidson (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split vote as per Turgidson - delete List of European exonyms because Category:Exonyms exists; keep linked articles such as Albanian exonyms etc. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Turgidson and Gandalf61 - same split vote; these lists of exonyms by language make sense to me, are useful, fit well in the WP project, are interesting, are good to have in this format, they make for a better encyclopedia, etc. Wiktionary doesn't offer exonym lists of this type, right? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Since we're apparently still debating this, one of the things that Wikipedia excels at is being a reference work that contains more than a paper encylopedia could. The topic of exonyms is encyclopedic, but the limitations of space, and the need to conserve that space to foreign languages that we Americans consider the most popular (Spanish, French, German, in that order) has hitherto prevented something of this nature. I recognize, of course, that most people won't care about what comes from Albania-- who gives a shit about some Balkan third-world like Albania, right? True of the rest of these dinky little countries too, so delete all those litss, right? But one of Wikipedia's assets is its global view. The average American kid may find summaries of "Charmed" episodes to be more relevant than boring old exonyms, but Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a reference. Mandsford 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well said, Mandsford. I'll second that. Turgidson 13:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. To me, this seems to be an absolutely unmaintainable collection of lists. Note that there are several regions in Europe with more than one official language, either now or in history; just think of the Province of Bolzano-Bozen where probably every village (and city quarter, etc.) has both an Italian and a German name. Not to speak of locations in Poland, Belgium, etc. If someone wants to add these to Wiktionary - OK, userfy the pages, but I don't see how these lists can be properly maintained with reasonable effort. The translations are better added to the appropriate articles about the cities. And the information can also easily be found there. --B. Wolterding 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has not changed. Why discuss this again? I still think that the article List of European exonyms can be deleted but the individual lists should be kept for the reasons outlined above. And to reiterate my question: if you are specifically looking e.g. for Icelandic exonyms (but not for a particular one), is there a way to do so in Wiktionary? Also, your suggestion "The translations are better added to the appropriate articles about the cities" doesn't really work - I have seen exonyms deleted from articles about cites/countries because they weren't considered relevant, e.g. the Icelandic exonym Svartfjallaland for Montenegro. Gestumblindi 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point, Gestumblindi. And, before anyone says, "who cares," let be bring another example: As this page tells us, the Romanian exonym for Leipzig is Lipsca, which of course is not mentioned in the Leipzig article. But this is mentioned in the article on Lipscani -- an important commercial street in central Bucharest, whose name comes from Lipsca. Also the exonym for Konstanz is Constanţa (same as the name of a port city on the shores of the Black Sea), and sure enough, you won't find that kind of info in either article. I could go on and on, but let me stop here. Once again, good call. Turgidson 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another nugget that came to mind while discussing this topic: as mentioned in the Dinicu Golescu article, the first Romanian-language newspaper to be published outside the country (in 1827) was "Fama Lipschii pentru Daţia" ("The Fame of Leipzig for Dacia"). So, even if an exonym like Lipsca is more-or-less obsolete, it lives on (like the Cheshire Cat's grin?) in various forms or guises. To lose this kind of info would be a pity, methinks — a bit like seeing an endangered species going extinct (sorry if I sound too corny). Turgidson (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Articles like this are extremely useful, and I see absolutely no harm in it being kept. Is Wikipedia limited on space? No. Is the subject notable? Yes. I agree with the comments of Gestumblindi and Turgidson... it would be extremely difficult to find these if they were transwikied. The obscurity and rarity of the subject itself is also another reason for keeping. I think it would be a shame to see this articles go... and it would be foolish of Wikipedia to allow them to disappear. Max Naylor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8It will not be difficult, see my "suggestion" below. Mukadderat (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all exonymy is part of toponymy and history and is encyclopedic. WP:NOT#PAPER, nearly all other large Wikipedias in other language have these so apparently the notion that this is encyclopedic and notable is widespread. Google scholar has over 300 hits for "exonyms OR exonym OR exonymy" so scholars seem to think it's worthwhile. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see such lists in any large encyclopedia. And we are not discussing to delete the exonym article.Mukadderat (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, WP:NOT#PAPER, you wouldn't see any television episodes, individual songs, albums, small towns, or any high schools in any other large encyclopedias, but they are here and that's the beauty of WP. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all. This articles are not about an encyclopedic topic "exonym". This is an infinite list of exonyms. We don't have List of synonyms, List of antonyms, etc., Such things are normally looked for in dictionaries, not in ncyclopedias, in our case we have wiktionary. Mukadderat (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. I understand that, unlike simply words, place names in foreign languages are of special interest. I suggest to add into corresponding geographical infoboxes a link to the wiktionary entry, where names in all languages may be listed. Mukadderat (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't help me find e.g. specifically Icelandic exonyms or Romanian exonyms, in this way I would only find exonyms in many languages for a given place. But I am interested in e.g. a list of Icelandic exonyms. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Just take e.g English-Iselandic dictionary. You must certainly find Washington in Iselandic there. But if you want Az-Zawiyyah in Icelandic, I highly doubt you will find a reliable ref for inclusion it into wikipedia. Also, I don't quite understand why this exotic request must be catered by wikipedia. I am very curious to find names of all carpenter tools in Vietnamese. Shall we create List of names of freshwater fish in Ngongombongo language? `'Míkka >t 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This rhetorical question sounds like a red herring to me. :) Turgidson (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also occurred to me that we have a major verifiability problem with these lists as well. `'Míkka >t 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to find individual Icelandic exonyms in an English-Icelandic dictionary - but not a list of exonyms. I would have to look up each city individually. The list here is a much quicker and more comfortable way if I want to know what the Icelandic exonyms for well-known places around the world are. Also, I do not think that the request is particularly exotic. For a start, the mere existence of all those exonym lists from Albanian to Ukrainian, over time edited by lots of contributors, proves that it is something of interest to many - unlike your hypothetical "names of all carpenter tools" or "names of freshwater fish in Ngongombongo language". Of course there are many places without any well-known exonym in a particular language and therefore I don't understand why you refer to "Az-Zawiyyah in Icelandic" - well, there is no Icelandic exonym for Az-Zawiyyah, I suppose, and that's it. A "major verifiability problem" I can't see - as you said, you will find the exonyms in dictionaries. The list of Icelandic exnonyms, for instance, was checked using dictionaries not long ago. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Lists are distinct from both categories and articles and have an important part to play in the project - see WP:LIST and WP:CLS. If these were purporting to be articles they would be far substandard, but as lists (and clearly headed as such) they are an extremely useful part of the cross-referencing para-structure of the encyclopedia as a whole. This is especially true of Central and Eastern Europe, where German was once a lingua franca and where borders have been so often changed. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy as copyvio and salt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawp[edit]

This is the sixth time this piece of nonsense pops up. Can we salt this thing? Speedy delete and salt. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 09:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Sandholm[edit]

Non-notable TV journalist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V (external sources are Myspace, Youtube and his employer), and may be autobiography. I think this qualifies for a speedy delete under CSD#A7; I tagged it accordingly but the originator, Sandhomie (talk) (contribs) deleted the speedy tag three times; after he was twice warned, IP 96.2.117.107 (talk) (contribs) took over and deleted the speedy tag twice more. So here we are. JohnCD 09:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've seen articles with more notability asserted speedied as A7. BLACKKITE 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of "non-notable" journlalists biographies out there. i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Riley_%28MPR%29 I think this is anti-semetic. 96.2.117.107
I think Wikepedia and the interweb alike are bettered by the existence of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.75.32 (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sandholm is a TV reporter in South Dakota who comes from Minnesota. Article fails to show sources establishing notability and Google News Archives shows none. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable reporter on a small TV station. RMHED (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Drizzt Do'Urden. Neıl ☎ 09:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars[edit]

Non-notable fictional weapons. These are just props in a series of books and some games, and there isn't enough out-of-universe, third-party reference material to build a sustainable Wikipedia article.

{{prod}} and {{prod2}} removed by [[User:]] with the comment "remove prod, these are notable fictional weapons by wiki standards". I can't find any Wikipedia standard for fictional weapons. Mikeblas 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these fictional weapons have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting in which they endow players with 2-3 points if they possess them. --Gavin Collins 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Drizzt Do'Urden (where the weapons are already mentioned). BLACKKITE 11:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BLACKKITE; no need for AfD, just be WP:BOLD. Makes sense to just put it where it is most likely to be sought; in this case in article Drizzt Do'Urden. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Black Kite. Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and copyedit for brevity) - to Drizzt Do'Urden, these swords are not Stormbringer or Exicalibur. Web Warlock (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruftastic expansion of something which already has enough detail on the parent article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Black Kite. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too much coverage for a non-notable thing. Mbisanz (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menzoberranzan[edit]

Non-notable fictional location. Not enough is written in third-party sources about this location to provide references that support the construction of a meaningful Wikipedia article. The page currently consists of original research. Mikeblas 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [WP:Plot]], WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. Ridernyc 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no primary sources to verify the origins of this plot summary and no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability outside of the TSR, Inc franchise. --Gavin Collins 11:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a video game by the same name (and set in the same locale): [44]. Not to mention being a setting in a major set of novels does merit some idea of redirection. I suggest consideration of that instead of jumping to deletion. 68.101.22.132 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most important locations in the Forgotten Realms. Subject of its own boxed set [45]. Article is not the best written, but nothing here that can't be fixed, even if that means cutting out most and starting over from bare bones. BOZ 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rod_of_Seven_Parts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Entreri, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mielikki_(Forgotten_Realms), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer and the arguments of others at the similarly ill-advised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furyondy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerûn (this last is particularly relevant as it is a similar setting, and was almost - and should probably have been since there were many "keeps" and only one "merge" - snowball kept). Tedious, almost pointy WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination that ignores editor consensus; unfortunately becoming quite common in Articles for Discussion discussions. Amazing. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the one who removed the prod tag, added the primary sources tag, and added a short stubby section on development to encourage expansion. This article is undoubtedly bad now, but guess what? This is Wikipedia, land of "we prefer amateurish badness to nothing with the hope it can be improved." I can assert that out-of-universe information exists (development, reception, etc.), though it might be tricky to dig up. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, so as long as a good article can eventually be written...

Even if such extra information proves small in the long term, then at worst the article can be merged to a more general "Underdark of Faerun" or other Faerun article, not deleted. SnowFire 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—mainly because this has been used in multiple works of fiction, especially with respect to Drizzt Do'Urden. Yes it needs to be referenced. — RJH (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used as the setting for many different novels and game modules. Transcends a single work of fiction. --Polaron | Talk 02:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the setting of multiple New York Times best selling books. A unique setting and one that can be referenced and improved. Web Warlock (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson P990[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Too few substantial references exist to build a sustainable, well-referenced Wikipedia article. What's available are largely product reviews (which don't do much but confirm the product's existence) and press-release driven capsule pieces.

{{prod}} was removed by User:202.65.53.146 with the comment "I understand your concern but I find these pages to be very useful for our customer support and development of mobile applications.", which I think demonstrates how Wikipedia is being abused for commercial products. Mikeblas 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The fact that people are using this article is a reason to keep it, not delete it. The item seems to be notable in that it is a flagship product, has a fan-following and much anticipation. The article has lots of references so the proposal just seems to be malicious. Colonel Warden 10:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article that I'm looking at has no references (at all). There's a link farm in the EL section, but there are zero references and several {{cite}} tags. -- Mikeblas 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep as per Colonel Warden-it had essential information to make it a notable page. Do not delete a page due to your liking but check the page first.--Quek157 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Wikipedia is not a phone catalog, and WP:N is not quite satisfied by the two reviews. Edison 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Edison does raise valid concerns, but I'm thinking it's probably over the line for notability, but just so. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there should be a total review of this cell-phone issue. I hope I don't offend anyone by saying so, but I have started to dislike what seems to be a salami-tactic used to delete all the cell-phones. Also, it is my conviction Wikipedia should - in general- have an article of all cell-phones with notable sources, so people comming and looking for information, will find it here. Greswik (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - I can't believe that the thought of deleting even crossed your mind, this is one of the major phones to be released and if you have this page deleted, you might as well consider delete every corresponding phone release from every manufacturer. The "Non-notable commercial product" is unfounded as this is one of the successor of the P series by SE. At present, this page is in no way attempting to market nor encouraging others to purchase this phone. However, I would agree that this page needs a clean-up and standards improved to match the other cell-phone pages. But how would you justify keeping the remainder cell-phone pages (for example the N95) and how different are those pages compared to this? --Wikhull (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Brent Cavedo[edit]

I took the prod off this article, I thought it at least deserved an AfD since I couldn't find a notability standard for judges. He is a judge of the Virginia State Circuit Court in an important U.S. city, but there is no notable legal decisions etc. asserted to bolster that. Dougie WII 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I commend Dougie for bringing it here, as it does look questionable. However, merely being a Circuit Court Judge in Virginia, even in Richmond, isn’t really a claim to notability. Richmond alone has eight Circuit Court Judges[46], and there are hundreds of sitting Circuit Court judges in Virginia right now. Factor in all the retired and deceased judges, and we are thousands of judges, possibly tens of thousands. More importantly, the Circuit Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction [47], so they almost never issue formal written opinions. When they do, the opinions have very little precedential authority – the precedent would only apply in the given circuit. Finally, the username of the editor who started the article makes me suspect a WP:COI issue.--Kubigula (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can handle any number of articles if the people are notable, so it wouldn't matter if there were half a million notable judges. . And COI is no reason for deletion, just for scrutiny. DGG (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair comment. The point I was aiming for is that being a state trial court level judge is not, at least in VA, a sufficient mark of distinction, in and of itself, to justify an article. The reason is that, barring some particular controversy or involvement in a high profile case, these judges are unlikely to be the subject of any significant scholorly or news coverage. I would presume a state appellate court judge, a state supreme court justice or a federal judge to be notable, but not a state trial court judge.--Kubigula (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think your argument is right. We do have to check these things state by state, as the titles seem to vary widely, but it does seem that in Virginia this is not a notable position. DGG (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. RMHED (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USHL Team Records[edit]

Excessive listing of events for a junior ice hockey league. Possibly trivia, and questionable notability? Grouping four articles which appear to be copied directly for USHL media guide. Flibirigit 08:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete: I think some of the records should be merged back into the main United States Hockey League article, such as most ties, wins, losses, goals, assists, PIMs. But the rest aren't notable, such as most goals per playoff game, etc and should be deleted. -- JD554 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - changed from merge and delete as I've been bold and added the records I think needed saving into the main United States Hockey League article. -- JD554 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete as JD554 suggests. Alaney2k 14:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Djsasso 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per JD554's bold edits. --Pparazorback (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazism in Estonia[edit]

Delete unless anybody thinks that an article about 12 skinheads in 2001, a student considering leaving the country, and 3 members of the Russian neo-Nazi group were put on trial in Tallinn, + an incident in 2006 in front of McDonalds the only facts in the article make it encyclopedic. There has been enough time for everybody to come up with any facts that there is a considerable Neo-Nazi movement in Estonia, so far the 4 refed facts have remained the only facts in the article.
Also the article has been created by User:AspireQ, a suspected sock of the sockpuppet master User:Bloomfield who is known for creating bogus articles about Estonia. --Termer 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is utter crap. It's really sad that some people (all too often soviet apologists) keep trying to smear Estonians as Nazis and Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where this drivel gets peddled. This article is just a handful of incidents involving a handful of nutters. There's 'neo-nazism' in every town in the world by this measure. Nick mallory 08:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Let's create an article - Neo-Nazism in [insert hated country here]. I notice there isn't even such an article for Germany, UK, or other places like where they have real validity. The Evil Spartan 08:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Anything worth keeping can go into Neo-Nazism which already has sections for various countries. Colonel Warden 10:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently nothing really notable here. There are neo-nazi, neo-stalinist, neo-hippie or whatever movements all over the world. They need something more to actually become notable. Suva Чего? 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good idea, Suva. Maybe we should rename it to Extremism in Estonia or something like that and throw in this lot as well. Oth 15:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Maybe, but then we should probably throw out the skinheads. They are mostly just kids playing to be extremist. Suva Чего? 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. There is certainly a neonazi scene in Estonia, and there's enough material (especially if the timeframe is widened) to have an ok article. Anecdotal and unsourced material should be weeded out though. --Soman 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Material on participation of Estonian neonazis in manifestations in Sweden: http://expo.se/2003/48_458.html (2002) and http://expo.se/2004/48_1226.html (2004). --Soman 18:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems that both of those only mention Estonian neo-Nazis passingly and are not about them - also, I don't think that the page qualifies as a reliable source. There are handful of neo-Nazis in Estonia, most are "imported" - from Russia, naturally, but also from US (see Craig Cobb) and Finland (see Risto Teinonen). -- Sander Säde 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is certainly a neonazi scene in Estonia? So far the provided text talks about a Neo-Nazi scene in Sweden. So once the opinion is to keep and improve, should we at first create an article Neo-Nazism in Sweden perhpas? Also, the provided material, it mentions someone from Estonia among other countries taking a part of this march in Sweden but who exactly were these people, the 12 skinheads mentioned in the Neo-Nazism in Estonia article?--Termer (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Neo-Naziism. Neo-Naziism may or may not be a problem in Estonia, but there's a lot of evidence pointing to a politically motivated smear campaign by Russia. Most countries of the world have Neo Nazi movements of one kind of another (including Russia itself!), so this article doesn't really provide anything particularly informative. Article fails NPOV without more sources about the claimed smear campaign and on the politics of the matter. Nobody of Consequence 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Neo-Nazism#Estonia. There is not enough material for a separate article, but there have been incidents that should be mentioned (repeated "import" from Russia, previously mentioned Craig Cobb and Risto Teinonen - but WP:LIVING must be followed). Alternatively, Extremism in Estonia could be created, which would allow including proto-Nazi groups such as Nashi and Nochnoy Dozor. -- Sander Säde 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to all Merge/redirect suggestions. Please point out what kind of facts should be included in the suggested redirect

a) 12 skinheads celebrating Hitlers birthday in 2001?

b) a student considering leaving the country?

c) an incident in front of McDonalds?

b) 3 members of the Russian National Unity were put on trial in Tallinn?

e) denoting any political movements mentioned above such as Nashi or Nochnoy Dozor etc. and/or any living persons mentioned above as an American Craig Cobb and a Finn Risto Teinonen as Neo-Nazi?

Is that all what it takes to become notable on WP? --Termer (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can be referenced? There are some neo-Nazis in Estonia, majority of them Russians, some alleged neonazis from US and Finland have moved to Estonia and are trying to find followers. Incidents are isolated and rare, Russia is trying to allege state-level fascism in Estonia, however, there is no proof of that.

BTW, I found out that Cobb's farm "Valgemaa" ("Whiteland") is about 10km from where I live. Too bad I am such a gentle and good-natured person (n/c), or I'd pay him a visit. With a torch.

-- Sander Säde 09:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did he ever get residency in the country in the first place? Martintg (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Craig Cobb isn't his real name - it may be Craig Cobbrdon Baum ([48]) or David Cobb ([49]). Probably nothing came out with his real name - and also, most likely he hasn't commited any crimes in EU or Estonia, so no criminal record. FBI isn't consulted in residency queries... -- Sander Säde 12:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You were kidding right? at least one of the sources described the guy by his opponents like a fool who is looking for attention. Another web page you linked here speaks of him as In fact, "oddity" is the best way to describe him. And the first article commented the guys he is together with on the pic as drunks having trouble standing up straight. And this is what you'd see fit under WP:Notability? I'm sorry, you must have been kidding.--Termer (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you haven't looked at WP:BIO: "The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." And oddball or not, he has a great many articles published about him. Termer, Wikipedia isn't only for "good" material - this is encyclopedia, not travel agency leaflet. -- Sander Säde 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm still missing how could anybody see this guy fit into an encyclopedia? It would be like awarding his seek for attention, thats what the guy is after like one of the sources says. Listing the guy in a travel agency leaflet would be another thing. A crazy American Nazi living in Estonia sounds like a tourist attraction indeed.--Termer (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Termer on this. The estonian neonazis are nothing but a bunch of wannabes who like to drink beer and complain about black people coming into estonia. The "notable" ones are just some stupid media clowns who like to see their picture on the paper. Suva Чего? 08:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're nothing more than a handful of posers. However, I don't think that outright deletion is right, as there is *some* material about that. Like I've said already, not enough for a separate article, but enough for a ten-line section. -- Sander Säde 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure do hate deletionism. I still think that article Extremism in Estonia might have some vitality. So we could list all the neo- groups and their twelve members. Without actually deleting anything. Suva Чего? 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be bold and create Extremism in Estonia, redirecting Neo-Nazism in Estonia there? -- Sander Säde 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

creating Extremism in Estonia? I think it's a very bad idea. You could already tell that it's going to be a POV battleground. What you think that if you call the Putin's Nashi etc. extremists, it's going to be the end of it? An article like that just gives too much room for interpretations and unless anybody have called themselves directly "extremists" , you're not going to have any NPOV content in there and it's going to be an edit warring contest instead giving a lot of opportunities to use the Fascist (epithet). enough said. Sorry but -bad idea--Termer (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nick mallory --Martintg (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is not enough substance for an article with current name. Oth (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and delete, though all that existed to merge was "...airs weekday mornings at 7:30. No redirect, as "The Breakfast Show" is highly ambiguous, and the name of numerous morning shows across many television stations. Reso lute 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Breakfast Show[edit]

Very little infomation about the show, not notable and it is a community television program. Thewizkid93 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to C31 Melbourne. Preferably without merging the bit about one of the camera operators going to Holmesglen TAFE. --Stormie (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, one of the cameramen is a TAFE student. Delete it unless sources can be found indicating that the programme itself is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge & Redirect to C31 Melbourne, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be nonsense: One of the Camera Operators, Leon Sjogren, Hosts Channel 31's HIT TV on Saturday's and attends Holmesglen Tafe in Chadstone studying the Diploma Of Broadcasting course. - that's really just... not what we need on Wikipedia. Auroranorth (!) 13:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete& redirect Mbisanz (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian ancestry of royals of Bulgaria[edit]

This article constitutes a great deal of personal research that tenuous, remote and distant connections of the House of Wettin in Bulgaria to earlier Slavic and Bulgarian dynasties which is inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Similar descents listed for other individuals (such as Nicholas II) have been deleted or switched from selective descents to general ancestry. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository, this article is out of place and oversteps the line of what is worth including in Wikipedia and what is not. I don't think that very distant Bulgarian connections were the reason for choosing Ferdinand of Kohary and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as sovereign prince in 1887 as most of Europe's royals would have shared them. Charles 07:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also for consideration are the follow articles for basically the same reasons. If for any reason there are different opinions for different articles, please make note:

Delete As nominator. Charles 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while of minor interest in particular articles, this essentially constitutes genealogical trivia that is difficult to source authoritatively to begin with and is wrapped in all sorts of nationalistic POV that is extremely difficult to unravel. It's of interest to say that because of Diana, Princess of Wales the future King William is likely the most English king of England in centuries, but the entire topic is not worthy of a bothersomely synethetic article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these articles seem to have a nationalistic POV in mind; basically they're pushing an agenda. There may be the occasional time when a genealogy like this is widely published (e.g. Jacobite succession - but the four articles here don't seem to fall into that category. They verge on original research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regardless of the motive for insertion, these are good summary articles in an area where we have weak coverage. It obviously needs proper sourcing. There shouldnt be any problem finding that. We are indeed not genealogy--and these articles are not genealogy. If it were it would show all the connections at every step of the line. This instead is the appropriate depth of coverage. (With respect to the Jacobites, the removal of these would be a clear expression of wp's national bias). They are not OR, just assembly of data from obvious secondary and tertiary sources. They should be retitled to eliminate the improper nationalism shown in the titles. DGG (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are genealogies, how could you say that they are not? These are articles based on singular ideas which have not shown to be of particularly important, contemporary consideration to these royals and when their monarchies were instituted. We don't have a Greek pedigree of Otto or Constantine of Greece or a Swedish pedigree of Charles Gustavus of Sweden and so on and so forth. Understand the multiplicity that such an article brings, articles which are already unsuited for Wikipedia. Charles 10:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems a clear nationalistic agenda and a violation of WP:SYN.--Aldux (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hoax, by WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ende International Airport[edit]

Appears to be a hoax. Claims that it replaces an older airport, but external links are actually for the older airport itself. (Don't know where the photo was found, but no indication it's of the airport claimed). Vandal has industriously edited many other articles to create fictitious flights here. Vardion 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The photo shows a Varig Boeing 707, which must be pretty old. --DAJF 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it more closely — is it even a photo? It looks more like a computer-generated image, maybe from a flight simulator program. -- Vardion 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my, usually hoaxers don't take these elaborate steps for their article. Any recomendations for a new hobby? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as hoax. PP-VJY, delivered in 1969, was converted for Brazilian Air Force use in 1986.[50] Links indicate that Ende is H. Hasan Airport. Vehicles, buildings, and esp. lamp posts in image look like MS Flight Sim. • Gene93k 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax. There was another user (now banned) called Victor N who made up false airport information in Indonesia about a week ago that look very similar to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.83.169 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Comment: An anon IP added more unattributed content to the article, while another attempted a redirect to the true airport. I have reverted to E Wing's last edit, figuring the AfD needs to properly end. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It might be more believeable if somebody didn't give a "photo" of this airport's terminal building that looked remarkably like it was created in Photoshop. No information about this airport exists at this time other than blank accident profiles. Google turns up nothing on the airport code. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Extensive collection of airlines were edited, many of which do not/could not offer service to Erde, even if it existed. Suggest that the appropriate action is deletion under WP:SNOWBALL Ringbark (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Working with your idea of WP:SNOW. I've tagged the article with a generic {{db}} tag. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone has to close it before it can be deleted.DGG (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold~~ I found several references to this airport with a Google search on "Ende International Airport". I've listed them on the article's talk page. The first gives quite a bit of detail, including coordinates that match the article. Also there is a brief article on the indonesian Wikipedia about Ende "populasi ±250.000," which gives a location, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia, that matches the first link. This may not be a hoax.--agr (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are most likely referring to the real airport that is located there, H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport. V-train (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I found (not WP:RS) says that Indonesia changed its ICAO codes. An outdated Google preview a document at icao.int says that WATE is ex-WRKE. Coordinates for WRKE and WATE match within a few seconds. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at http://www.airportfact.com/c9723-ENE-WRKE-ende-east-nusa-tenggara.html It says the airport name is Ende and the FAA code is ENE, ICAO = WRKE.--agr (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am referring to. It points to the same coordinates. I found the 2004 ICAO document here [51] (PDF - see page 6). Indonesia changed the ICAO codes for some of its airports. WRKE is the old code for WATE. As airportfact.com contradicts all other sources, I suggest it is out of date. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the hoax article doesn't even claim to have WRKE as its code, it says WATE, the same code as H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport. The Google Earth link on the airportfacts.com page also leads one to that airport. V-train (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree they seem to be the same airport and the information in this article is not supported by references, but in that case there is no need for a delete action; a simple redirect to H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport will do.--agr (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the "International" part of the name is a hoax. It is not worth a redirect. No trace of its use beyond Wikipedia and it mirrors. The article links sources say H. Hasan Aroeboesman Airport has a 5000 ft runway that doubles as a public road when planes are not using it. • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not an international airport. --agr (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Definitely a hoax. The "photo" looks like a recreation of the TWA terminal at JFK in some drawing program. I'm relatively sure Varig hasn't flown a 707 in decades. V-train (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article also started Maunura, Indonesia and Maunura (I've redirected the former to the latter). A Google search indicates it is a real place but the editor added claims about Ende International Airport. I've given a final warning to the editor to stop his/her disruptive edits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vineyard Vines[edit]

Not sure this is a notable company; the article makes only a very marginal claim. Parts of it read like an ad. Also, the only references are from vineyardvines.com. Unless we can get a more solid explanation of why this company's notable, I'd say delete. delldot talk 05:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't have sources for its claim to notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added a citation for the bit about Inc. magazine. Some parts of the article are a little ad-like, but I'd probably say the company's notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry. Esrever 13:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not seeing notability Mbisanz (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe the one reliable source justifies encyclopedic notability. "217th fastest growing company" is not by itself a compelling claim; if it were, Wikipedia would become an archive of Inc. Magazine. Xoloz (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by the nominator. Leebo ^T/C 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Richler[edit]

Does not meet the notability criteria for people, notability is not inherited. Guest9999 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would suggest merge, but content already exists in the appropriate articles Mordecai Richler and Jacob Two-Two. —Caesura ^(t) 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was probably eligible for a speedy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence presented of notability and just one sentence. If something changes, I'm willing to reconsider. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody was awfully lazy or sloppy here. Jacob Richler is, in fact, notable in his own right as a newspaper columnist, although obviously the current version of the article left that rather salient fact out. I'll look after expanding it, so I guess this is a keep vote. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely published columnist and author. Satisfies WP:BIO: as a writer for a national newspaper, "The person has demonstrable wide name recognition". Ground Zero | t 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable national newspaper food and restaurant columnist who happens to be Mordecai Richler's son. Keep. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thanks to Bearcat's work, this is now a completely different article from the one that was nominated. The nominated article was a stub that did not establish notability. This no longer applies. Ground Zero | t 23:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new-and-improved article establishes his notability as a writer for a national newspaper. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Paul Erik. J. Richler has written for many of Canada's most prominent publications.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not notable whatsoever because he is Mordecai Richler's son, but is notable because he is a well-known columnist. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination on the grounds that the article has changed so much that my original nomnation is flawed and does not cover any relevant issues to be considered (even if others think that the article should still be deleted). Close without prejudice. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete per Caesura. GJ (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His stature as a national newspaper columnist is enough. The fact that he is the inspiration for one of the best known characters in Canadian fiction makes the decision all the more easy. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational deflector[edit]

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Plot-summary-laden story is entirely in-universe with no citations to reliable secondary sources. --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability, its just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above; it isn't notable, purely unnecessary plot information which is probably discussed elsewhere. - Rjd0060 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a Trek fan, this is not a notable piece of fictional technology outside of the universe, and I strongly doubt that there will be a finding of notability. Assimilate this information into Shields (Star Trek). Resistance is futile. LonelyBeacon 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and {cleanup}. Some form of "navigational deflector" technology will presumably have to be developed to actually attain faster-than-light human spacetravel, or probably even near-light-speed travel, so it should be possible to find references to scientific research and theories of how to attain it in real life, to add to the article about the concept. Ravenna1961 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- However, in this universe is isn't possible to find references to scientific research on this subject. There isn't even a treatment of this subject as a fictional plot device. There's nothing written about this subject at all. Note that your supposed source, an advertisement, does not actually support the content that you added to the article. It contains no such conclusion or analysis. What you've added is original research, which is forbidden here. That you've reached so far as to use an advertisement as a source and been unable to find anything at all to support the article, or even your own conclusions, should be a big red flag that there are no sources to be had. Uncle G 11:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced. User Ravenna1961 can recreate the article when faster-than-light travel is attained. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ravenna1961's cleanup work. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my joke is better than yours. Did I steal your punchline? Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, on second thought, neutral. I was mostly reacting to the sectioning of the article, which gives it a better look to some extent. The sources are rather lacking at the moment. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I own a copy of The Physics of Star Trek, so I'll dig it up tonight and take a look to see if there's anything particularly relevant in there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LonelyBeacon. Article is unsourced fictional technology that is obscure in the Star Trek universe and not notable in the real world. Also, the above mentioned cleanup hurt more than it helped IMO. • Gene93k 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for sources myself. None exist. This article is unverifiable, and Ravenna1961 has provided an excellent, if somewhat ironic, demonstration of how writing anything at all on this subject would be original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Bleach)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Pure fancruft and WP:Plot regurgitation that fails WP:FICT with WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations as well. Description of Bleach shinigami versus general meaning already covered in the appropriate detail in List of Bleach shinigami and Bleach (manga). Collectonian 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Plot information, not notable, insufficient third-party sourcing. Could this be merged anywhere? - Rjd0060 05:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could maybe be merged into List of Bleach shinigami or Bleach (manga). I did move over the intro stuff and incorporated it into the List of already, but I think the all of the essential details are already in the latter. Collectonian 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Reason - what User:Collectonian stated above, I don't think it should go so far as to be deleted, but merged into List of Bleach shinigami is a must per WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Sasuke9031 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article aids in the understanding of the subject, and the NPOV/OR claims would need some kind of example. I see nothing that falls under those, nor would such violations be delete worthy unless they were all-encompassing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in theory this could be merged into another article, however, all or most of the information in this article is notable and therefore it wouldn't be practical to merge it per WP:SIZE. Also, the article is vital to understanding both the series Bleach, as well as shinigami in general. Most of the good reasons for keeping (and some weak delete arguments) have been already covered here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. — Quasirandom 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Great article, but its in the face of Wikipedia policy. Bleach is one of the ten most popular pages here, but this is OR, with no showing of real world notability, and written in an in-universe style. I personally like it, but I can't make it pass muster under WP:FICT. Additional comment. Having said all that, 6 weeks is pretty quick for a 2nd AfD. I know WP:CCC but I am concerned that we are destined to go through this process endlessly until we iron out exactly how WP:FICT applies to episodic programs. Xymmax 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry on the short time frame, I hadn't seen the other AfD notice until after I'd already submitted. Collectonian 18:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Collectonian was not in the wrong to nominate the article 6 weeks after because the first nomination was made by a known deletionist-class vandal and so this is the first true nomination. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I noticed, that nomination went through the procedure without being pointed this matter. Isn't this bending the rules in the favor of multiple nominations? If by some chance, the vote would have turned for deletion, would that user's mania had been taken into account? This seems wrong to me on so many levels. If this turns out for keep, I'll be passing by next week to vote in the possible next future nomination, with the reason this was made by a vandal. Trucizna (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "true" nomination, nor is Pilotbob a deletionist vandal. Don't make assertions that have no basis in reality. He may be a foolish deletionist who bit off a bit more than he could chew, but that's about it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing as some of the content in List of Bleach shinigami's lead sections was copied/adapted from material in this article, deletion is an impossible outcome; GFDL compliance necessitates that the authors' contributions be preserved. ~Snapper T o 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then a delete outcome would result in a wikideletion and redirect. Not a huge practical difference. --Gwern (contribs) 01:02 5 December 2007 (GMT)

Keep. I don't buy the OR arguments - there's nothing in there not from various Bleach material or not an obvious inference away. --Gwern (contribs) 01:01 5 December 2007 (GMT)
Obvious keep Deletion is not a replacement for cleanup. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Xymmax's thought. I don't see the possibilty for secondary information either. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is referenced in many places and I'm positive more references could be made. Any OR can be cleaned. I don't agree that it is in violation of WP:Plot and WP:NPOV. As for the WP:FICT, the article tries to meet the guideline in the lead section. (Duane543 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Not satisfied with the reasons for suggestion. If keep is impossible (which it isn't), then merge to Bleach (manga); too much important information to delete. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It seems well written and explains the topic so people unfamiliar with the universe can understand it. It shouldn't be merged with List of Bleach shinigami since all the information explains what the shinigami not who they are. The merge of the two pages would also end up too large.--Animefan2 (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Animefan2. The article may need a major rewrite, but deleting it is overkill. dposse (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I said the last time, there is too much valuable information just to be removed or redirected; merging it with other articles would inflate them too much.Trucizna (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The level of detail here is excessive fancruft and there is certainly no need for TWO articles to cover it (there is also List of Bleach shinigami). This minutae of detail belongs in an anime wiki or a Bleach specific wiki. It is not encyclopedic and it fails WP:FICT. The first few paragraphs can be used to describe Shinigami in either the List of Bleach characters or the main Bleach article. It would not glut the article at all, when done properly and with the excessive details culled down. Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could the nominator please give an example of what is supposedly NPOV about this article? And what OR violations are being seen? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, prove none of it is OR. There are only 18 cites, mostly from the manga. Point me to the exact source for every thing listed under training, combat, mission aids, etc. Show me where in the anime or manga it specifically says, for example: "Kidō (鬼道, Kidō? lit.demon path) are a type of sorcery used by shinigami. They can be used for various purposes, such as healing, attacking, and restraining. Healing seems to be a more general skill, while attacking and binding require an incantation to be recited beforehand". For NPOV, here is one statement "A squad in Gotei 13 should not be confused with a division. A captain (taichō) leads a division, while squads (units of 10 or so troops) are led by a seated officer, possibly as low as a 20th seat. This is further complicated by the official English dub, which labels divisions as squads." It isn't cited and appears to be an editor's guess or comment based on their translation of the original Japanese and their view of English dub. Unless a source can be cited to actually show the Viz dub is wrong, it should be considered the expert over a random editor (or worse, fansub) idea. Collectonian (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need on Wikipedia to cite every single sub-sentence if the sentence includes undisputed general information - for example, in order to source every factoid in the sentence you provided, you'll need at least 6 sources (1 -> kido is a magic used by shinigami; 2 -> they can be used for healing; 3 -> attacking; 4 -> restraining; 5 -> healing seems to be a more general skill; 6 -> attacking and binding require an incantation), and this is really not necessary if none of the information is disputed, although with some effort, I could source all 6 separate facts.

Regarding the note at the bottom, it's a note not about the general term, but about Wikipedia's use to avoid confusion. Viz labels them as squads, (and real squads as groups) in the anime, but the same Viz labels them as companies in the official English manga, therefore there is already some confusion and no 'official' term. Wikipedia is in no way bound to use the official term per WP:COMMONNAME, which in this case is clearly 'division'. Therefore, a note is needed to explain the usage and prevent confusion for readers less familiar with Bleach, especially its Japanese version. If however the Viz anime term of squad would be used, then a note would be necessary explaining how these 'squads' are not really squads, but consist of at least 200 shinigami each (this can be sourced).

Lastly, the fact that you haven't answered my concern on your talk page, and have instead quickly archived it (and deleted a second request for answer), suggests that you are a deletionist of the same class as the previous nominator.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--How do you use the strike out thing again because I want to change my vote. Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per there's tons of notable information in there, any OR coulp be changed, deletion is not a substitute for cleanup and per this ANI incident and the concerns addressed there. Sasuke9031 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - appears to have been improved to meet notability and sourcing standards. Wily D 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Ray (magazine)[edit]

Delete nn magazine published by a nn company, fails WP:CORP.

also nominating:

Blackfish Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which publishes the mag.

Carlossuarez46 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll: Not notable, and I don't see an assertion of notability with Blackfish Publishing. - Rjd0060 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all ev'em per WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete an article rather than ask it to be improved first? This is a magazine available nationwide in the UK and therefore notable in my book, whatever Wikipedia guidelines (note: not rules) say. There are also a lot of other magazine articles about magazines with a LOT less notability than this one (and I'd keep most of them, too). It's like Wikipedia has turned from a site which encourages people to add information and articles to one where people actively want to delete articles. I suspect that puts off a lot of editors, and destroys faith in the project. Stephenb (Talk) 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've managed to employ three of the classic fallacious arguments in one, there. The fallacies in "Guidelines not rules." and "If article X then article Y." are dealt with in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The third fallacious argument is the "notable in my book" one. If Wikipedia operated that way, then it would be a chaos of individual, personal, and wholly subjective standards of what's notable. That's why we employ the PNC, which is not subjective. If you want to make an argument that actually holds any water, you should address the quantity and depth of the sources available on the subject, showing that the PNC is satisfied. Uncle G 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for pointing out what you consider to be fallacious arguments. The first, "guidelines not rules", is not actually a fallacy (yes, I read the article) but has a valid implication to the debate in that the article should not be deleted simply because it fails to meet a guideline (given as the sole reason for nomination); the second "if X then Y" is true: I agree that it's not an argument not to delete this article, but is a powerful argument when considering what it implies to Wikipedia as a whole, which I hope I justified in the following arguments above; thirdly, "notable in my book" isn't saying that I think it is notable to me, but that I think it meets the criteria of notability for Wikipedia (and note that's always going to have some subjectivity, otherwise they'd all be speedy deleted). Sorry if that wasn't clear. Stephenb (Talk) 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I believe your response has further enlightened us on why those arguments are fallacious. --Nehwyn 21:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As fallacious as the idea that the primary notability criterion is not subjective. I count four subjective terms in the sentence. It's a good rule of thimb, but that's all it is, and Wikipedia:Notability (books) is another one. Hiding T 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and sources. Colonel Warden 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree entirely on all points with Stephenb - very well put. Both are also notable if Matt Bielby is; and I think he is (for his previous prolific editing career). -- roundhouse0 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Hiding T 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stephenb 203.220.105.151 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a mainstream magazine carried in mainstream shops and seems more than notable enough to deserve inclusion. Alberon 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see a body of work here that would indicate inclusion. --Stormbay 17:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked over the references of the article and looked for more myself; I was not impressed. There are only two listed in the article and both are shaky at best. Bielby himself asserted that the magazine only had a goal of 20,000 in terms of circulation and readership. The lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources indicates a lack of notability. The magazine is still in its infancy at just around seven months. I would not be opposed to recreation later if it becomes more popular, but right now, it doesn't seem to merit its own article. --Cyrus Andiron 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Stephenb. I heard of this magazine and thought 'I want to find out a bit more about it, I know, I'll try Wikipedia'. And sure enough there was a reasonably informative entry. It would be a shame to delete it! Alarichall (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good mag, good article. Recently established so sources are few, but def. notable. 203.221.238.246 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 20,000 isn't much by US standards but for a niche publication in the UK it's quite a bit. It's also widely available in related UK shops and has content (access to stars etc) in keeping with a notable publication. Also is recently established (ditto blackfish). Mr. Analytical (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that Death Ray is a publication that deals in a niche subject matter. As a magazine and a piece of media devoted to SF and Fantasy, it is therefore not the kind of publication that is likely to receive much coverage in the mainstream press. This means that the google test, frequently used as a means of gaging notability, is not particularly reliable as a means of determining notability because how notable such a publication is does not depend upon how widely it is discussed but how well it is known and how widely it is read and as Death Ray is widely available in UK shops, I would argue that it is both known and read. Mr. Analytical (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources interspersed among the "vanity" ones. That notability is limited to the UK is obviously no reason to delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bielby[edit]

Delete nn, sources are basically first party sources, but nothing really distinguishes this gentleman. WP:BIO.Carlossuarez46 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Director of a non-notable company; not notable. - Rjd0060 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO (and his pic is very annoying). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable editor in the UK, has launched many magazines Stephenb (Talk) 08:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of the publications with which he has been associated have articles and I have even heard of some of them, eg PC Gamer. He seems to have been a prolific editor, admittedly in a minority market. -- roundhouse0 10:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable in the UK publishing field. The article does need rewriting, but it isn't right to go straight to trying to delete it. Alberon 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article establishes his notability adequately. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphins Swim[edit]

Delete one-line article sourced to JMDB not a reliable source. Better to delete and await a real article rather than have an unreferenced sub-stub floating around pretending to be an encyclopedic article. Carlossuarez46 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It isn't notable. - Rjd0060 04:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rjd0060. One-line article that isn't notable, and has one source in Japanese (so if you can't read Japanese, it means very little). 1ForTheMoney 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG Shine Bar (KG770)[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This article is just a list of features, and reads as an advertisement. There's too little substantial, third party references to support a meaningful article; practically all material available is from press releases or in small reviews. Listing at AfD after {{prod}} removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Mikeblas 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, this is not a directory or catalog of cel phones. Fails to show substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, so fails WP:N to show this device is notable. Edison 04:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NOT. Yet another non-notable cell phone article. - Rjd0060 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. No indication that this is advertising but the claim for notability is debatable and more information would be helpful in improving the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertazzoni-Italia[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy, declined, re-tagged and I declined because some folks here think anything 100 years old merits note. I'll write my great grandmother's article next year I guess :-) but really folks, it's just a business with no indication why it's notable and longevity of 100 years in an Italian business isn't overly old. Carlossuarez46 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I originally tagged speedy G11. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wouldn't really call it "blatant advertising", but after a lack of references present in the article, and via a google search, it does not appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination provides no real reason to delete. The article makes claims of notability ("distributed in 60 countries") and provides a source. Here's another. Colonel Warden 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. (The history section of the company’s website is not entirely devoid of interest.) —Ian Spackman 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability per WP:CORP#Primary_criterion. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independent sources, and others can be found on google. Satisfies definition of notability, and is an old if relatively obscure manufacturer or popular consumer products with worldwide distribution. This is dead center in the range of subjects Wikipedia should cover if it is going to discuss consumer products. Company's longevity adds, does not detract, from notability. No cogent reason has been offered for deletion.Wikidemo (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but this certainly doesn't mean that the article can't be moved to another name if people want. I hope the discussion on whether and where to move the article will go on on its talk page. delldot talk 10:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bell[edit]

Nn bio. Name of someone in the evening news Sdoll555 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. I have fixed the formatting and listed it in the log. Natalie 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore. The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.[52][53] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.184.97 (talk) 2007-12-04 09:51:58
Keep: Notable incident, received lots of national media attention. Here are some more refs which could be added to the article. - Rjd0060 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This has to be one of the more pathetic excuses for deletion I've ever seen. But then again, given that we allow anybody, no matter how little experience they have, to create two AfDs in three edits, this is really our fault. This is a thoroughly documented article with several dozen reliable and verifiable sources, for an incident that has been in the news on a constant basis in the year since it occurred. The case has raised significant issues of police undercover practices in New York City, above and beyond the racial overtones involved. Notability is established. The AfD process is broken. Alansohn 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear, hear I have been working some AFD proposals just now and it's disgraceful how casual and slipshod the process is currently. Colonel Warden 09:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The process isn't. The people are. The problem is the perennial problem of people who haven't been accultured. And the only solution to that is education — for editors, like you, to do AfD Patrol and to point editors, who are not lifting a finger to look for or to read sources or who are outright ignoring our fundamental content policies or who are simply new and really shouldn't be bitten, at our various policies and guidelines, explaining to them that their arguments will be discounted if they are contrary to the fundamental policies that describe the goal of our project. Uncle G 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The process is not broken. It would be broken if an argument that an article citing 42 sources dealing with the subject (which is, as noted below, the shooting, not the person) should not be deleted were ignored by a closing administrator. But that has not happened. Nomination is not the same as the end result, nor is it the whole of the process. You are confusing the twain. Uncle G 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The process IS broken. The article need not be deleted to demonstrate the stupidity of our existing process. The mere fact that I (and many other people) will have to waste time responding to unjustifiable AfDs such as this one over and over again, is clear evidence of a deep and fundamental issue. As to pooh-poohing this as a problem of unacculturated users, why on earth are we granting one of the most potentially disruptive powers to any person who is willing to spend the seven seconds or less needed to register a Wikipedia user ID. When I create large-scale computer systems for entry and retrieval of corporate information, I establish policies and procedures to support the system, and set up the system to support these policies. Even if we were to establish a wastefully intensive manual process to guide every single newbie and to share our extensive experience on how to use every single feature of Wikipedia, we would still have no fewer incidents of individuals using (and abusing) powers that they never should have had in the first place. We need to start establishing policies as to who should be allowed to create XfDs (and other sensitive functions) and building it right into Wikipedia. Anything less is a wide-open invitation to further abuse. Alansohn 18:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please take meta-discussion of AfD policies somewhere else (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), for example). This page is for discussing whether our article on Sean Bell should be deleted. —Caesura^(t) 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfortunately, this entire discussion never should have existed in the first place. Alansohn 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Shooting of Sean Bell and restructure appropriately. The incident may be notable as it was widely reported, the victim is probably not notable in his own right. [[Guest9999 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep. Widespread media coverage. —Caesura ^(t) 06:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Sean Bell shooting incident. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming IIRC, I proposed renaming the article last year, for similar reasons. The editors I talked to argued that the incident hadn't really been given a name by outside sources (the press), and so there wasn't a good name to rename to. I don't really have an opinion on the name, but I thought I'd mention this other view. Natalie 15:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Massive media coverage. Suspect bad faith nom. Ford MF 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident, well-sourced article, shouldn't even be close. It may well need to be reconciled with the other article since the incident clearly is what creates notability. Xymmax 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Ford MF (bad faith nom). hateless 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on renaming - the article is linked by name to several other articles as a reference to the person, not the event. Stephenb (Talk) 17:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Shooting of Sean Bell"; it is the event that is notable, not the person. --Nehwyn 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than adequately demonstrates notability. I personally view the renaming of such articles as an exercise in splitting hairs, but if it helps some people lean keep or better suggests to future editors what the scope of the article should be I concede it as a practicality. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major political significance in NYC, national coverage by Fox, CNN, AP. multiple sources over many months and still continuing. Possibly rename, but that is an editing decision. NOT NEWS was meant to exclude articles that got coverage in a few newspaper articles for a few days. DGG (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above. Person gets way too much recognition. ZordZapper (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.52.172 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC) — 24.191.52.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
move, per above. 24.184.55.33 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muzik 4 machines[edit]

Does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. No independent coverage. Nv8200p talk 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet music inclusion guidelines. - Rjd0060 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:MUSIC. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:MUSIC. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Gibson[edit]

Insufficiently sourced and speculative single event biography. Notable only as a crime victim, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. MER-C 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable person, so tagged. I could have gone with A1 (no context) as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom and lack of notability. Jmlk 1 7 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above; insufficient sources to assert notability.- Rjd0060 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the above, especially WP:NOT#NEWS.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron⁸³ 10:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Valley Marketplace[edit]

Non-notable outdoor shopping center Caldorwards4 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable shopping center, fails WP:RS. Possible A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nampa, Idaho: I only say redirect because there is information about the mall in the Nampa article, but it isn't otherwise notable. - Rjd0060 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a commercial real-estate directory. This site has no claim to notability. -- Mikeblas 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rjd0060 . --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced that a redirect is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erubism[edit]

Prod removed, so here we are. Non-notable neologism, WP:OR, and/or WP:MADEUP. Zero relevant Ghits. Ravenna1961 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:V. --Brewcrewer 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for violating the fourth tenet of Erubism. LonelyBeacon 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:V, obvious neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (NN neo), especially the comment by User:LonelyBeacon. - Rjd0060 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT. Hell, speedy delete per WP:SNOW. eaolson 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snow is not one on of the criterion for speedy deletion. --Cyrus Andiron 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I realize that. I'm just saying that this article doesn't have a snowball's chance of surviving the AfD, so let's get rid of it now and move on with our lives. I was mostly just expressing frustration with yet more WP:NFTcruft surviving prod and clogging up the AfD process. eaolson 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete philosophycruft. JuJube (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)[edit]

Four non-notable individuals running without organization once doth not an article make. At best, this should be merged as a factoid for the List of Manitoba political parties. Also, the complete lack of references makes me think that this original research as well. I have now done some Google searching online and almost everything related to "Prohibitionists in Manitoba" is either a Wiki mirror or articles related to pot. I doubt given the nature of this topic that it could even be expanded into anything meaningful. Cheers, CP 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see anyone address the fact that this is original research. I am a member of Wikipedia Canada and obviously if this were about a legitimate political party of any size I would tag this for expansion and leave it be. But it's not. It's four non-notable individuals who ran without organization in one election and there are no sources available other than the bare facts about it. So aside from being original research, it's un-expandable original research. Am I missing some key component of this article? I'll gladly withdraw if I am.Cheers, CP 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything uncited is automatically original research. Indeed, in this case I'm not sure how User:CJCurrie would have gone about doing original research on the subject; more likely, he used secondary sources and just failed to cite him. I'll drop him a line on his talk page to ask, though. Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it was original research just based on the fact that it was uncited. I claimed that it was original research because the sources do not exist and synthesizing four admittedly unrelated candidates under the heading "Prohibitionists in Manitoba" strikes me as very ORish. Original synthesis is still original research. Cheers, CP 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I misunderstood. That would be OR, you're right. According to User:DoubleBlue below, though, they "ran together like a political party" (admittedly, I'm not sure of his source on that, either). Sarcasticidealist 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be original research if they each ran as independent candidates on a prohibitionist platform and we were conflating that into a single article — but if the word Prohibitionist actually appeared on the ballot next to their names, then it needs to be treated as a political party whether it was formally organized as one or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article obviously need sources (and these probably aren't available online), but it's a useful stub: a list of which candidates ran under the label and where they ran, suitable for expansion in good time. I understand the nom, and I won't be too choked if this ends in a delete, as long as there's no prejudice against re-creation in a more fleshed out and sourced form. Sarcasticidealist 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep let it expand. --Brewcrewer 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious keep per the topic of the article. Needs sourcing, and expansion (if possible). - Rjd0060 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Manitoba general election, 1903. These candidates ran together like a political party. An article should be written on them and this appears to be a small step in that direction. Tag and seek assistance at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve rather than AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any political party which ran candidates in a state, provincial or federal election should have an election about the party. The individual candidates may not be notable on their own, but the common banner that they ran under most certainly is. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this nomination is that they weren't an organized party, a fact that seems to have been removed from the article. Cheers, CP 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my question is did they run specifically under the banner of Prohibitionist, or did they just run on prohibition as an issue with their actual party designation given as "Independent" on the ballot itself? If the former, then we realistically need to treat them as a party whether they were officially organized as one or not; if the latter, then we should probably merge them to a longer list of Independent candidates. IMO, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had some sources. I searched myself both before and after nomming, but I can't find any, which is what worries me. Haven't heard back from the article's creator either. I would gladly withdraw the nom if proof could be obtained one way or another. Cheers, CP 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the emerging consensus is to keep the page. I'm quite happy to accept this result, though I would have been willing to transpose the information to a page on independent candidates in the 1903 election, if the consensus had been to delete. As regards sources, (i) I took the numerical results from the archives of Elections Manitoba, and (ii) I discovered the affiliation of these candidates through the Winnipeg Free Press. Unfortunately, I don't have the page citations with me at present and finding them would be a minor hassle ... but I could look it up, if others believe it's important enough. Please note that Wikipedia's standards for citation weren't fully developed when I created the original page. CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would probably be better to redirect anyway, especially if the sources don't pan out. There's certainly a consensus to keep the information, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to keep it at this title if there are verifiability issues. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that the information is verifiable, but it may take me a while to find my source. CJCurrie (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Magic (Harry Potter). The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magical portrait (Harry Potter)[edit]

The article does not assert notability - there is no evidence of significant coverage by independent secondary sources. All articles on fictional topics should contain and be based around real world information. Wikipedia is not a plot summary and without any real world information or sources this is just an expanded plot section. WP:FICT states that even "Sub-articles... need real-world information to prove their notability", which this article does not contain. Guest9999 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Magic (Harry Potter), trimming ruthlessly in the process. --Paularblaster 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Magic (Harry Potter) per Paularblaster . --Brewcrewer 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Guest9999 is correct that this article does not meet the criteria on its own. If other editors think there is salvageable information that can be merged into other articles, then merging is appropriate. If not, then deleting is the best course of action. Natalie 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As stated above. No reason for a separate article. - Rjd0060 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sections about the properties of the portraits into Magic (Harry Potter), and merge the information about the characters of the portraits into Minor Harry Potter characters. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 05:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced stuff elsewhere. Nothing in the books explained how the portraits were created or maintained, so the portraits are two-dimensional characters (Heh heh, I'm zipping tonight). Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great one, Fee Fi Foe Fum. I'm sure it won't be hard to get a copy of the information to another page, but we might need to call in a professional so the IPs that like to vandalise it won't know the difference... I should stick to my day job, I guess. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just have the redirect protected. Natalie (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh... that was also meant to be a joke, Natalie. Getting a professional art copier to move the information... -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Magic (Harry Potter) - good information, just needs a better home. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To help prevent recreation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magic or to Magical objects. Move the characters to Minor Characters, except the Headmasters' portraits. There's no need of mentioning them, maybe just within the description of portraits themselves. Lord Opeth (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magical objects in Harry Potter is already flagged as too long an article.

Userafw (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Magic (Harry Potter), but leave as much as the article intact as can be sourced. Give it a bit of time on the Magic page, and the citations will come. Hell, I'd do it myself, but I can't put my hands on all seven books at the moment. -- Aaronomus (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church usher[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already exists on Wiktionary. Otto4711 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, the article is mainly a dictionary definition and may be of more use there. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... and this is not a dictionary article. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about church ushers. It currently stands at one paragraph. But that's part of what being a stub is. Editors are making the usual mistake of confusing "short" with "dictionary". I'm sure that, taking in hand the various books on the subject (e.g. ISBN 0805435174, ISBN 1591608937, and ISBN 0310247632) as well as other sources, editors could expand that stub to a full article. Thus this is a perfectly valid stub article with scope for expansion. We don't delete those. Please familiarize yourselves with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, as well as User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. You should be expanding stubs, not nominating them for deletion. Keep. Uncle G 02:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. --Brewcrewer 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly more than a dictionary definition, but less than an "article".....if only there were a term used to describe that type of thing. - Rjd0060 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into any appropriate article. Incidentally, Wiktionary has an entry for usher but on the topic of church ushers it seems less complete than this Wikipedia article. So I wouldn't rule out transferring to Wiktionary either. But my vote is to keep it on Wikipedia. Fg2 07:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crabnet[edit]

Delete - Unsure is this is a hoax or just some non-notable bar in Australia. Either way it is unreferenced and wikipedia is it's only yahoo hit. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete There are lots of other hits for Crabnet on Google, but none seem to indicate the place depicted in the article. --Pmedema 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be notable; cannot find sufficient sources. It is unreferenced, unverifi (-ed / -able). - Rjd0060 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. delldot talk 07:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Steele[edit]

Claims notability by being the lawyer for a case, as sourced by the Anti-Defamation League. This article appears to me to be an attack page, and a single ADL reference plus a reference to his own website doesn't to me appear to prove notability Nyttend 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability, already tagged. - Rjd0060 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if he's notable, but he was covered a bit in Idaho. For example:

Sagle lawyer Edgar Steele is still on the job.

Steele is the one-time attorney for Butler who portrayed himself as a latter-day Clarence Darrow, willing to defend those whose teachings he despised.

"Yeah, he's a racist," Steele told jurors about Butler in the Aryan Nations leader's 2000 trial for instigating an assault on passersby of his former compound at Hayden Lake. "Yeah, he says reprehensible things."

Today, it's Steele saying those things.

Last weekend, he was a featured speaker at a California gathering of people who deny that the Holocaust happened. And he told the group that assertions that 6 million Jews died in Europe at the instructions of Adolf Hitler constitute "a pattern of lies." [...]

—"The Rev. Butler's attorney becomes his protege," Lewiston Morning Tribune, May 2, 2004. This event was also covered in the Spokane Spokesman-Review. It looks like the only national coverage was during the trial, and it did not focus so much on the lawyer. On balance, I say delete. Cool Hand Luke 02:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps justified by primary sources: his postings on a remarkable number of obnoxious web sites. DGG (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this page, I would argue that he is quite notable within white supremacist circles. SkepticMatt 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've removed the speedy delete tag, as I don't believe it worthy of a speedy delete; as an administrator, I would have deleted it myself if I believed it worthy, but the wording about "gained notoriety" sounds like an assertion of notability. Nyttend 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had inserted the speedy delete tag that you later removed. Am I correct in thinking that the article's creator should not have removed the tag, that it is okay for an uninvolved editor to remove a tag, but the creator should not remove it? That is why I reinserted it before you removed it. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct: the author cannot remove the speedy tag, but anyone else can. You did rightly; if nothing else, you had no way of knowing that I would have deleted it immediately :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't an attack, the guy has compared black people to cows on his website and has asked the ADL to refer to his as "Mr. Anti-Semite." Just because the vast majority of people would find his views reprehensible does not mean that stating the facts about Steele is an "attack." Notice that I never said that Steele's views were "hateful," or "wrong," in the entry and thus I maintained NPOV. Incidentally, prior to his "coming out," as an extremist, he was an attorney for several notable clientelle, appearing on all major cable networks. He remains a prominent figure in the White Nationalist and White Supremacist communities, and was prominently featured alongside David Duke in a 2004 rally. SkepticMatt (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this project page. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if subject is notable then provide the verifiable references required by Wp:bio#Basic_criteria. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has been deleted twice before. It concerns a non-notable MLM, and is written by a user who persistently keeps reposting it. It now has more sources, but they're all garbage. For example, it cites to Time magazine—except Time never mentioned the product. It's cited because the company was allowed to buy reprints of the article as advertising. This article also cites the company itself and press releases which utterly fail to demonstrate notability. I've looked, and there's just nothing here. It fails WP:CORP. It's also pretty clear that this page exists to promote the product, so is also WP:SPAM. Cool Hand Luke 01:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All that "Validation and Mention"? Paid for by VíaVienté. Agreed with the Time reprint per CH. The Terry Bradshaw segment is a paid program which airs in five minute commercial blocks and is not endorsed by the network it airs on (my bank was on the same "show" once), the KDAF (WB news segment) leads to a 404 and sounds like it was actually just an informercial for the product that aired on the station and not the newscast, and the Dallas Morning News was likely one of those full-page ads which most people ignore because it's clearly not editorial content (I can't find sources for the last two but I would surmise that's what they are). Buying space in something to say you're notable doesn't make you notable, and this sounds spammy. Nate · (chatter) 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from mainspace: Delete or userfy; per the previous consensus. Not notable. - Rjd0060 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate adverts, but I can't delete because of this.--Brewcrewer 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that Morning News article is real, then this article should be allowed, but rewritten so it would comply with WP:SPAM. Otherwise, I would say delete, for spam issues. -- azumanga 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why would a single article that looks like an advertorial, hosted on the CEOs website, make this company notable? Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Looks like the non-critical fluff pieces you see in every Sunday business section (on which day it did indeed appear). Nate · (chatter) 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as frequently re-created spam (dubious "references" and all). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasionist[edit]

This started out as an attack page. I took out the attack and prodded as a neologism invented this week. The word already existed without this specialized meaning. Deprodded today, so I'm bringing it here as a not notable neologism. Dloh cierekim 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable neo. G-search brings back things unrelated to the claimed meaning here. - Rjd0060 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An inventive, but non notable use of an already existing word. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and per Rjd0060. LonelyBeacon 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Brewcrewer 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism/dicdef per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 02:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Moon Books[edit]

Assertion of notability is not backed up, or convincing. 'An international following' isn't necessarily a criteria of notability. I'm not sure what 'Sold on high streets' means but I doubt that this is an assertion of notability either. No references or citations. A similar article is bdsmbooks.com also proposed for (CSD) deletion. If an admin removes that DB without deleting, and the person who placed the DB tag doesn't switch to AfD, I'll list that one here as well. Avruch ^Talk 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. There are many ghits. The article is poorly written but it appears to be something of some significance. Its books are sold on Amazon.com. Undoubtedly, the article needs some serious cleanup but the subject itself seems to be notable. Billscottbob 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I don't know...It needs a lot of work, but with the above g-results, appears like it may be notable. - Rjd0060 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. the ghits above are deceiving since there are no quotes (only 500-odd hits with the three words in that order). But it is indeed a pioneering and well-known imprint, as is the successor bdsmbooks.com (which gives 6200 hits) I think if anyone's actually hoping to document the original e-book publishers in this field, both imprints need to be included. Steve Rapaport 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant guideline appears to be Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), and I can't see how this comes anywhere near satisfying it? The google hits seems misleading, all of the relevant hits seem to be companies selling their books, which does not seem to count as a secondary source; the other hits don't seem to refer to this company. I'll withhold voting for now, in case someone can provide some evidence of notability? Mdwh (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing notability Mbisanz (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixiepunk[edit]

Neologism, no evidence of use ([54]). PROD/PROD2 removed. BLACKKITE 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN Neologism, (per nom). - Rjd0060 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as neologism, not commonly used at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it is similar to Cowpunk then I think we should see some sources to prove that it is different enough to warrant it's own article. In the absence of any, then delete. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, can only find this word used as a nickname. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete "List of characters in Glass Mask" and move "List of major characters in Glass Mask" to that title to cover the notable characters. --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of major characters in Glass Mask[edit]

Delete normally we don't divide between major and not major characters in these sorts of lists; a merge of anything useful to List of characters in Glass Mask and then delete this is the best result. Carlossuarez46 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: The actual important information anyways. Not notable, with the exception of directly relating these characters to the show, so no need for a separate article here. - Rjd0060 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got ambitious two months ago and did a lot of work splitting a long article out per WP:SS but stopped halfway. And there's a fair amount of work to be done -- the Lead of Glass Mask was cloned out into the two articles and not edited. Without the editor around to explain his intended final schema, I can only make suggestions based on what I see, which is that THIS is the better article (better organized and written) but List of characters in Glass Mask has the better title. In fact, I don't want to save any of the content of List of characters in Glass Mask. What I'd like to see is move this to List of characters in Glass Mask, wiping out the existing content there. And then tag for cleanup to get a context-providing lead (and delete that inappropriate infobox) and a few more citations to explain why the cast is notable. (Yes, notability is a concern, but give the editors a good-faith chance to finish the job first.) —Quasirandom 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in Glass Mask. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of characters in Glass Mask per above. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I guess, but given the number of characters, and that this series has been running since the 70s, it wouldn't surprise me to have more than one list of characters. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current List of characters in Glass Mask and then rename this one to replace it as per Quasirandom. Of the two, this does a much better job covering the actual notable characters. Collectonian (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, given the strength of argument, and the direction in which the discussion headed as it neared closing. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man flu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing improperly placed nom by User:Psinu Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless addition of ages-old old wives' tale in a new package. This is the third nomination for deletion, plus it relies on a laddie mag as a reference... those two in themselves tell you enough to make up your mind, I think.. Psinu 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that editors will read the article and see the actual citations, rather than rely upon your rather inaccurate summary. Uncle G 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Read 'em. Still dumb. Wiktionary, maybe, even probably (given some of the arguments that came after mine). Wikipedia? Nope. Psinu 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, some of the sources seem legit enough to me, even if it is an "old wives tale". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this is important, encyclopedic. Yes, some of the sources appear to be legitimate, however the stories in those aren't of proper tone, they seem to be of a comical sense. I have to agree with User:Jules1975 in the previous AfD, when s/he said it would be better suited for Uncyclopedia. - Rjd0060 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Human flu. I'm concerned about the problematic sources as well but if more sources can be produced, I think it would deserve a culture section on the parent article--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human flu. Its a term in common use, but only as a joke. ~~As others have said make it a redirect to Flu or Wiktionary.~~ The current content is just a definition. The sources are based on small magazine surveys, not medical research. MortimerCat (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect. If it's a commonly used term with published material then it should be kept. However, inclusion of this 'culture' item would also work well as part of Human flu, as per Lenticel's vote. Billscottbob 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator seems to think that the fact that his nomination is the third such is a reason to delete. It isn't. As the article has been through two previous AFDs, he needs to bring something new to the table before going over this again. 86.136.83.63 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you say that? Considering that the nom's statement was that he was completing a dangling nom, and then he voted weak keep himself, that tells me the exact opposite of what you seem to observe on the part of the nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Human flu. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for crying out loud. I don't care where or how the information is kept, but those people asking for deletion seem to be missing the point somewhere along the line. They seem to be ignoring the goal and nature of an encyclopedia anyone can edit and instead are focusing on a series of words held in a computer database they believe are set in stone. Whatever is of use in this article, use it. And use it where it is best used. And amend this part of the database accordingly. The scope here is the sum of human knowledge. We can spend all day throwing things out, but it would be better to consider the grand scheme, and try and fit all the bits and pieces in their rightful places. I don't want to be here in twenty years time looking for that last blue piece of sky someone threw out because we had enough blue. Hiding T 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the last comment. This is not a medical dictionary but an encylopedia of all things. Redirecting it to human flu only gives it some more credibility. Man flu is a term commonly used in a light-hearted way to describe varying strains of colds, bugs etc and not a medical definition. I suspect in 5 years time when "man-flu" is still in common use, it would look a bit odd if Wiki didn't cover it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.180.10 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the article sure can stand to have some more info added to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid social phenomenon even if medically dodgy. The article could stand some better indication of this context. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets quite a few recent Google news hits [55]. RMHED (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, at best a neologism Mbisanz (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A list of plays performed by the characters seems minimally important, so I won't merge. If someone wants to do so, let me know & I'll restore the list in userspace. — Scientizzle 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Mask drama plays[edit]

Delete another bare bones outline of an article with minimal content and context and lacking sources, not encyclopedic, and nn. Carlossuarez46 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No context for inclusion; maybe categorify? - Rjd0060 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got ambitious two months ago and did a lot of work splitting a long article out per WP:SS but never finished all the supporting work. In this case, I think this shouldn't have been split out: a simple list in the plot summary sub-section of Glass Mask would do, including the wikilinks to the relevant articles. Certainly, the plays performed by the cast are not WP:FICT notable, except insofar as it's an acting manga. Merge into Glass Mask. —Quasirandom 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Glass Mask. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Duane543 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1, complete lack of context and content. Just a bunch of section headers. Collectonian (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. delldot talk 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Mask places[edit]

Delete just barely enough content & context to avoid speedy, but still neither encyclopedic, notable, or keepable Carlossuarez46 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, unreferenced; may be suitable for a category, but I don't know for sure. - Rjd0060 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody started work expanding Glass Mask but left it unfinished -- or, really, unstarted as an article with headers but no content. Delete without prejudice to allow recreation in the future if someone desides this is a necessary article and can adequately source it. Though frankly I don't see why this can't be covered in the parent article -- with the character lists split out, it's no longer egregeously large, and settings are harder to source notability than characters. —Quasirandom 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Glass Mask. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Duane543 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Call of Duty (series) until there is enough information from multiple sources to warrant a fleshed out stub ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 5[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Seems way to WP:CRYSTAL, source provided for this article seems to be a blog or forum. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Call of Duty (series) until there's a lot more reliably sourced information to be said about it. --Stormie 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- furthermore, the Vivendi factsheet referenced in the article's source ([56]) does not actually say "Call of Duty 5 is under development", it lists is as "in the pipeline" along with such things as "new DreamWorks titles, new Marvel titles". This does not necessarily mean it's under development, could just be in planning stages. --Stormie 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: For now, until more information becomes available. - Rjd0060 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Stormie.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - It will be made, so should rest in the main article until there is enough for its own article. Judgesurreal777 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom; when more information becomes available, the article can be revived. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Striken per new information from SkyWalker. Wow, that was fast. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IGN article SkyWalker linked is sourced from the same Vivendi factsheet I linked above - it does not confirm that any development is yet underway, just that COD 5 is one of the future plans "in the pipeline". --Stormie (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As the development of this game is already confirmed (IGN being a reliable source), this can be mentioned in the Call of Duty (series) article as mentioned above. No own article needed at this time. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No own article needed at this time." - That doesn't make sense.--Svetovid 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Call of Duty (series). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ign confirmed that COD 5 is confirmed. --SkyWalker 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI'm glad it's been confirmed. So has Commander Keen 7. I've been waiting for the latter for almost 15 years, but I'll tell you what, it ain't ever happening. When the section of the Call of Duty (series) article has grown to the point where it warrants its own article, that's when it should get one.--CastAStone|^(talk) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect As it is now, there is too little info for this to be an article by itself. We know the game will eventually be produced, but that's about it. Merge for now, until more substantial info is released in the coming months. Comandante42 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirmed, why bother deleting something when it's going to be improved on soon anyway. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - it's a confirmed game.--Svetovid (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Even considering it is confirmed, there is very little information on what the game is or about. An article shouldn't just be "Such and such is a game that will be made and released for people to play." That's all the article is at this point, so it should redirect to the main Call of Duty series page until more information is known and the article can be more than a single, grammatically incorrect sentence with some links. --clpo13_(talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please realize that deletion considerations are not about personal opinions.--Svetovid (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: You appear biased. The above user's decision for how this article should be handled isn't a personal opinion; he clearly states a logical reason for it.Comandante42 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is just your opinion. Please show me a guideline or policy that says that an article about a confirmed game cannot just say "Such and such is a game that will be made and released for people to play."--Svetovid (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't say that, unless there is proof. Any idea that this game will be made is speculation; the game has merely been announced, not confirmed that one day in the future it will actually exist. The article is at this point pure speculation save the name (which is itself subject to change), and is thus unfit to be an article by itself. I fail to see how temporarily merging the info until more concrete details are released isn't a satisfactory solution. For all we know, the game might be held up in development for whatever reason, and never be released. Nothing is definite here, and you can't just have speculation in an article for months on end until real facts can be added simply because there is nothing better to add at the time; such actions are stop-gap measures for articles that deserve to be deleted. Since long, drawn out debates bore me, I leave this as my final argument. Comandante42 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this game IS confirmed and IS coming out, probably within the next year or so. Knowitall (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it's been confirmed by more than one site and more information will be added so why delete it when we're just going to add more information in future days to come?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The reality is that updates may not be forthcoming for months. Why jump the gun and have an empty article floating around until May or June? If we merge and redirect the article, we acknowledge the game's existence without creating leaving a blank page. As it is, the game has not even been confirmed for any game console or the PC; it has only been mentioned in a list of games lined up for production which may not even be released until the end of 2008, or possibly mid-2009. Everything but the game's name is speculation. Comandante42 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 'n' Redirect:The article currently is too short, and insufficient information to include in this article as of now. Probably it can be expanded when more news is released.--Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main series article, for now, and recreate as a seperate article when more info is available. The game is confirmed, and is definitely coming out, but that's all we know for now. Not enough info for a seperate article.Umlautbob (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, it should be moved to the series article because even if its confirmed it doesnt't yet have enough info while it would be more apropriate to be included in the main series just like Call of Duty 4 was before it had more information. Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article just needs more time. The game has been announced. Within time, more details will become available. This is useful and notable. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect This article is mostly speculation right now, so why keep it? Wait until the facts are released, which could be a while from now. Deltagreen23 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frisbeetarianism

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

The result was

 _   _
((___))
[ x x ]
 \   /    Delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 (' ')
  (U)

MOOism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MOOism

This was kept two years ago because some people had heard of it, but at 2700 google hits this is so not an internet phenomenon, not even if it gets a minor passing reference in a book that is talking about the Internet as a whole. >Radiant< 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per WP:NEO. ~~And you didn't have to overwrite the old discussion; you could have just made "Mooism (2nd nomination)".~~ Overwrite fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN neo. Also, to expand on TenPoundHammer, not only could you have done that, you should have. See WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion for future reference. - Rjd0060 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I heard about this a few years ago. Yet I didn't believe it was notable then. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mildly amusing, and yet another example of how the wikipedia community eventually realized it was working on an encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than a minor passing reference in one book. A quick search reveals three books that deal with this subject. (The other two are ISBN 1405101814 and ISBN 0754630102.) Moreover, the one that is cited in the article devotes pages 169 to 171 to the subject of the "Church ov MOO". That's not a "passing mention" at all. Uncle G 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google hits are not a test of notability and that's all the nominator seems to have since the last AFD. If there's a more general article about joke religions then it might be merged into that but the material should not be deleted. Colonel Warden 07:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny, but not article-worthy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UncleG and GoogleBooks search. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I discovered MOOism not through the internet, but via fidonet. Just because it doesn't have a strong presence on the world wide web doesn't make it non-notable. M Jason Parent (talk)
Delete per Twsx. Can not thou find any better sources? Bearian (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly notable, although somewhat historical at this point. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malinaccier and Twsx - neologistic, contravenes WP:NEO. Funny, but not archival-worthy. Not everything that deserves a line in parody religion should have its own article, and the idea that every parody religion in the list does is an instance of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, IMO. - Banazir (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not contravene WP:NEO since there are Reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite which ones you mean. I looked at the self-published The Grate Book of MOO and, while it is also being published by the vanity press Lulu.com, it is still just a (longish) humor file put online many years ago. The other references definitely seem like passing ones to me. I'm seeing a lot of bare assertions of notability or lack thereof, and I would like to know whoch of the mentions to Mooism in reliable print references (not self-published; preferably peer-reviewd) you consider more than a passing one. - Banazir (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.L. Dawson & J. Hennebry, New Religions and the Internet: Recruiting in a New Public Space in L.L. Dawson (ed.) Cults & New Religious Movements, pp. 287-288. GoogleScholar citations plus Uncle G listed two books above and I linked to GoogleBooks above. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be stupid and/or funny but if it's reliably sourced and able to be presented in NPOV, then only a bias would make it subject to deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is as relevant a religion as any other, and had many followers around the world. Wikipedia is an attempt at a public Encyclopedia, and as such, has become an important place for researchers into New Religious Movement (NRM) New_religious_movement, and this one certainly qualifies. Discordianism had been in existence for 20 years before it became as large a phenomenon as it is today, who knows what this NRM will become in 20 years. Farrellmcgovern —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. Sorry, dude, the spork wins. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the spoon[edit]

No, Wikipedia is still not for things made up in school one day. Putting some terms together and grabbing a website does not constitute a valid parody religion. While I'm sure imitation is the highest form of flattery, a Flying Spaghetti Monster this is not. >Radiant< 00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Stormie 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to be in any way notable; NFT. - Rjd0060 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has as a basis a single blog entry? Pretty foolish. I could do that. NFT. - Psinu 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: made up on a blog one day, non-notable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike MOOism (AfD discussion), this one is not documented by anyone other than its creators, and is not written about in books. The only web page that I can find discussing it cites this Wikipedia article as its source. There are no sources at all on this subject. An article on this subject would be unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as Web content with no assertion of importance. —Caesura ^(t) 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non notable. Alberon 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in there says this is notable. And IMO, a blog is not a reliable source. 1ForTheMoney 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The content is fine; the only problem is the lack of documented sources. Yes, someone made it up, but that can be said of all parody religions. Harrison27 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that no sources exist is an argument for deletion, and a strong one, irrespective of what boldfaced words you put in front of it. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I guess you're right. A blog is not a reliable enough source. Harrison27 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless of course the creators can add links to, say, three newspaper articles about the subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep JoshuaZ (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Vuong[edit]

contested PROD, originally proposed for deletion per WP:BLP1E, but contested by User:Matilda. Non-notable person imprisoned for drug trafficking. Stormie 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; other than things which wouldn't qualify for inclusion per NOT -->NEWS. Old news needless to say. - Rjd0060 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable, and I would interpret WP:NPF to suggest that an article like this would be extremely damaging to Vuong in his later life. When he finishes his sentence in 11 years he will be 29, and even if he was smuggling highly illegal drugs, who needs a wikipedia article about something you did at 16 to forever haunt your past? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when does drug trafficking make someone notable? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you seem to be confusing notability and worthiness - the two are not the same - you can be notable having done something unworthy. He is notable for the circumstances of his arrest, his age, his mother's involvement in that arrest in that the police took actions that "betrayed a young Australian to overseas police after a parent's plea for help" [57] - thus becoming extremely newsworthy in this country. I hope your country's law enforcement agencies do not expose their citizens to the (harsher) legal systems of other countries but rather deal with the crime within the citizen's own jurisdiction.--Matilda ^talk 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, I'm not. I'm just saying, "What, another drug trafficker?". Adolf Hitler certainly fails worthiness, but no serious person would question his notability. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is not just another drug traficker: his case brings up issues of collaboration by the Australian authorities with a jurisdiction with significantly heavier penalties, particularly for juveniles and when his mother had appealed to the authorities for help - not to dob her son in. Hence the case received significant press coverage in this country - and not just as a one-off but over a period and is likely to continue to do so, or at least be referenced by the press as a benchmark case along with Rush.--Matilda ^talk 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So it's about the case, not the person. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes but unlike other cases, such as Beaumont children disappearance or Barlow and Chambers execution I don't think this one can be effectively renamed to refer to the case rather than the person but the article subject is the case not some twerp of a 16 year old though how one spearates the two ... --Matilda ^talk 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Stormie 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable because he was incarcerated at the age of 16 into a Cambodian prison, and for 13 years to boot. As for WP:NPF, if he comes out alive in 2028, I reckon a long forgotten entry in a Wikipedia article would be the least of his cares. He's also notable because the AFP reported him to Cambodian authorities which led to his arrest.[58] The case is very unusual and fully verified through multiple news reports, but I do wonder if he had a western name whether he'd have gotten more even press than he did. BTW, I thought it was normal practice to notify the article's creator when AfD'ing? —Moondyne 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also... Former Federal Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison is involved by his denial that the AFP tipped off the Cambodian authorities, contradicting an AFP letter published by The Bulletin. —Moondyne 09:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this andScott Rush and rename........--brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - merging with Scott Rush and renaming would almost certainly involve original research which is against policy. --Matilda ^talk 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of drug carriers, mules, and dealers in gaol. Their court cases are reported on. That doesn't make them notable, it makes them criminals. When they recieve unusual penalties, or result in changes to the law, then they are notable. I don't think Cambodians care as much about the magic number of 18 as Australians do, hence he recieved an appropriate sentence for his crime. If he commited the same crime in Australia his name would not have been released to the press.Ga rr ie 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrie. Many, many people have been put in prison for these types of crimes, and each person has not got their own article on Wikipedia. And from the looks of it, this person didn't exactly change the law. 1ForTheMoney 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." - WP:BLP1E. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-04t19:35z
Keep as per Moondyne - notable in Australia - subject to considerable press coverage (as per references in article - major Australian paapers and magazines) because his mother went to the police and the police informed the Cambodian authorities - he thus received a harsher sentence than if he had been arrested in Australia - there is controversy over the police actions in this case and that of the Bali Nine for the same issues. You cannot merge him and Scott Rush as suggested above - although their cases are similar - they are also different - it would require quite a different article, with original research, by drawing the conclusions of their similarity in the actions of parents and Australian aiuthorities - the closest we have is the list of Australians imprisoned abroad. This is not a one-off news story. The interpretation of our policy on biographies of living persons above is incorrect - wikipedia is not censored, the incident was well documented and newsworthy. The incident was not low profile and the subject is thus not low profile. Notability does not mean worthiness - some people appear to confuse the two - ie a drug runner should not be notable therefore he is not notable does not accord with policy.--Matilda ^talk 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no controversy above that normally present for a young, convicted drug trafficker. Clearly falls into someone notable for 1 thing only as stated numerously above. News archives searching shows that newspapers really don't care much beyond a bit of human interest. He was very foolish, got caught, convicted and failed in appeal. This is just a news story not an encyclopediac article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are hundreds of people doing hard time for drug smuggling all over the world, and this chap is no more notable than any of them, really. Lankiveil (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep When they get as much news coverage as this, they are notable. DGG (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but not as per WP:BLP1E. I'm going to say delete as per WP:NOT#NEWS (...Wikipedia articles are not simply... News reports.). Lots of reasons there - people with brief appearances in the news shouldn't have an article. Or maybe this is WP:BLP1E - but both ways, delete. Auroranorth (!) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - such items as a feature article months after the arrest in The Bulletin, which you as an Australian should be aware of as a significant weekly news journal, become more than "brief" mentions in the news--Matilda ^talk 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moondyne and others above. This is a notable case in Australia and has had significant media coverage in Australia. It would not be appropriate to merge with the Scott Rush article. As Matilda explained, their cases have superficial similarities but are actually very different and need to be addressed separately, so I do not consider the suggestion to merge, rename and redirect the Gordon Vuong article with Scott Rush a viable option. Sarah 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant controversy in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran Bennett (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Matilda. This was a strong controversy in Australia - it is not just "any old drug smuggler". I would ask the closing moderator that they consider that the original contributors to this debate did not understand the significance of the situation. The article is referenced and well-written, and there is no adequate article to merge to. It should be kept and improved upon instead of just wasting everyone's time by deleting everything. JRG (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matilda's, Moondyne's and JRG's reasoning. It's weird as in the case is notable in and of itself (i.e. not easily mergable) but the person is not. However "Gordon Vuong case" is a clumsy construction and it's better leaving it where it is. Orderinchaos 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Katamari Damacy. delldot talk 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cousins (Katamari Damacy)[edit]

This article is in violation of WP:FICT. As the original creator of the article, (I wrote it way back when) I don't think it is a valid topic. It has twice been changed to a redirect, the second time by myself. Both times it was reverted, so I am bringing it here. Please not that I do not believe the article should be deleted, but only redirected to Katamari Damacy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katamari Damacy: Per the nom. These aren't notable, and the article is basically fancruft. - Rjd0060 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Katamari Damacy. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Merging would be a bad idea as it will clutter the FA-class article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Lenticel. hateless 17:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Evidence presented indicates no such campaign prior to 2006. Article has zero sources to substantiate claims or info so a redirect appears unnecessary at this time. Pigman☿ 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadXP[edit]

AfDs for BadVista:

Articles for deletion/BadVista

contains ready to use merging in previous revision

contains ready to use merging in previous revision

Comment I couldn't find any evidence of the FSF ever hosting such a campaign. Google wasn't helpful: badxp fsf only produces 67 irrelevant results. - Sikon 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I heard of the BadVista campaign thanks to local news coverage. Evidently, the BadXP group didn't receive as much publicity in their heyday. I looked for more sources as well and came up empty. I suggest redirecting the article to BadVista. As far as I can tell, the group changed focus anyway once Vista was released. There really isn't much to the article now. --Cyrus Andiron 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir - with BadVista, under BadWindows name, transforming BadXP and BadVista into redirects. This permits to cover in future BadVienna campaign under the same BadWindows name too, by simply adding redirects such as BadVista, BadVienna, etc... and adding relevant sections to initial BadWindows article. These TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com proofs in its names including "badxp" string, that BadXP group once really existed, but since beginning of BadVista campaign it disappeared, transforming itself into BadVista group. Wikinger 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir - with/to BadVista (or vice-versa) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If BadXP is going to be merged, we will need to rename article to something like Free Software Foundation campaigns. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no evidence can be found of such a campaign, it doesn't merit mention in the encyclopedia. This includes the BadVista article. Verifiability is key. -/- Warren 18:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BadVista is already sourced with reliable sources, the problem here is with BadXP. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen for evidence. BadVista revives their old campaign. Wikinger (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. BadVista is sourced with a reliable source that proves that such FSF campaign does indeed exist. BadXP is not. - Sikon (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even Image:BadXP no littering.svg stylistically identical to Image:BadVista no littering.svg proofs that such campaign as BadXP existed in the past and even these TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com that simultaneously include "badxp" string proofs the same fact. Wikinger (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Image:BadXP no littering.svg is unsourced, so it does not prove anything. The link http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png is broken. The two links you mentioned have no signs that point to them being affiliated with the FSF. By the way, I do NOT object to the BadVista article in its original form - I only point out that there is no proof of a "BadXP" campaign having ever existed, and thus the BadXP article should be deleted. - Sikon (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently BadXP exists in frozen state. Better would be that article that is a merging of BadXP and BadVista into single BadWindows article will exist instead. Broken link wasn't broken when I created image, and again isn't broken. Please check again, if you don't believe. Two people could not independently use BadXP name identically in the same manner, thus they could only rip off BadXP name from now defunct BadXP site. In this way these TWO links: http://www.micosyen.com/bad/badxp.php and http://www.badxp.com proofs that BadXP campaign really existed in the past. Because of this fact they are described by me as unofficial. Wikinger (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinger, please do not perform any merge or rename without consensus. You are also changing other comments in this AfD to save BadXP, do not do it. The merge or deletion will be done by closing admin. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished your reverts where you missed. Let's admin make final merging. Wikinger (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, they could coin the name "BadXP" independently. And even if they didn't... I repeat, I see no proof that the FSF ever organized a BadXP campaign. Provide it. - Sikon (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I give you strong proof that BadXP really existed - for proof I give living link to BadVista's BadXP logo placed on their page: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen , that shows attempt to resurrect BadXP campaign again. Wikinger (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to BadWindows or FSF. Mbisanz (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look here: http://badvista.fsf.org/logos/BadXP_no_littering.png/image_view_fullscreen for evidence. BadVista again restores their old campaign. Wikinger (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit making shit up, Wikinger. You're doing the encyclopedia a disservice by continuing with your insistence, and you are wasting your time. There was no BadXP campaign. That BadXP image you are linking to precisely matches the BadVista logo style that was designed in 2006; this is because it was adapted from the BadVista design to "remind us that Windows XP also has activation".[59]. Searching fsf.org for "BadXP" produces precisely zero hits that predate the BadVista campaign.[60] You can check all the FSF mailing lists, press release archives, and blogs you like... you aren't going to come up with anything. -/- Warren 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the link you asked me to look at, I still believe the topic lacks notability and should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed all campaign-related terms to logo-related terms to be in accordance with your opinion about BadXP. Wikinger (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thieves' Guild (Elder Scrolls)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thieves' Guild (Elder Scrolls)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete nominator is spot-on, entirely in-universe, no hint of secondary sources to support notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICTION. RMHED (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why is this back here? Was consensus not clear to delete? The previous comments make a clear and convincing case. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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