Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 8

< December 7	December 9 >

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 Redirected to the main article, enabling use of any useful material for a "List of..." article. BLACKKITE 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rico (Hannah Montana)[edit]

This supporting character from the Hannah Montana Disney show lacks independent, third party sources to prove his Wikipedia-level notability. I tried to do a Google search, found nothing but fan forums, and even those mention him only incidentally. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: But I am a bit conflicted about this. By the guidelines this article cannot be justified. The other main character articles for Hannah Montana are potentially justified as there is significant press coverage of most of the main cast actors, but the character coverage is somewhat in passing. We have reliable primary sources of information for this article, the episodes themselves. Little or no coverage in secondary sources. Some coverage in unreliable sources. So we do have sources of reliable information that is WP:V verifiable and we do have notability, but not by secondary sources as suggested by WP:N. A List of Hannah Montana main characters article could be justified to include all the main characters as a partition off the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NrDg (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support list-of-character type articles rather than the proliferation of individual pages. If fans of shows would agree to make such list articles and deletionists would agree to not nominate such lists for deletion, a great deal of the rancor and AfD time-wasting could be avoided. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, supporting character from show, page is full of original research, but no sources beyond episodes of the show. When a character doesn't have a last name, it typically means they aren't important. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fee Fi Foe Fum. StewieGriffin123 (talk) 21:03, 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. Info already in Vincennes, Indiana article. Pigman☿ 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Vincennes, Indiana[edit]

"Unofficial" flag of a small U.S. town. Not notable. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. --Smashville^BONK! 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it back down and merge it with the article about Vincennes, Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the town article 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not because it is the flag of a small town. Vincennes is old, and as you can see from the flag, was French originally. The article has no sources, but if it did I would "vote" to retain it. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:41, 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 redirect. Pigman☿ 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand diplomatic missions[edit]

Vardion's article on New Zealand diplomatic missions was created shortly after my article in 2006, and was merged in (see Talk:New_Zealand_diplomatic_missions). It did not follow the style as adopted by the other Diplomatic missions by country. When these articles were renamed to comply with Wikipedia naming standards, I created Diplomatic missions of New Zealand, bringing over the most important information in Vardion's article. New Zealand diplomatic missions is now redundant and should be deleted. Kransky (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all you need to do is merge and redirect this - there's no need to bother the nice folk at AFD. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:28, 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 per notability and verification concerns. 1 != 2 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron & Wine Tour EP[edit]

User:Chubbles, who usually is very knowledgeable, removed my prod tag. However, a Google search I made found nothing to indicate notability for this obscure pressing. Unsourced, not notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given that it is unsourced and I could not find any in a brief search. If sources are found, I would reconsider my position. Alternatively, it might be worth a mention on the Iron & Wine article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, it would be better off merged into the bands article. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:08, 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 keep. John254 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Holle[edit]

This is a page for Ryan Holle, who has been convicted of one murder. There is no other claim of notability, and I can't find one from a g-search. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and from a BLP perspective, we generally don't have articles on people that are famous for one event. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The conviction is actually more notable than the original crime, as he was convicted of murder for letting a friend borrow his car, under a debatable application of the felony murder rule. The 2004 conviction has been a matter of ongoing press coverage, such as a two page article about it in last week's New York Times.[1] That makes 3 or perhaps 4 events, not one: lending out his car, the murder committed by someone transported in the car, his conviction and sentence to life without parole, and the notable discussion of the conviction. I'll try to expand the article in light of the AFD proposal though. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that he was convicted via the felony murder rule from the g-search, and also that it was because he let a friend borrow his car - I'm still not convinced that gives sufficient notability, and it is still centred around one conviction for a relatively common crime. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Lending out your car is not generally regarded as a "common crime." -- Kendrick7^talk 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might make the case more notable but not the person. Perhaps this should be an article on the legal case, if that's the important aspect. --Lquilter (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I noticed the AFD nomination on this article which was self-nominated for DYK. I'm more in favor of DYK. Getting life without parole for lending your car is definitely news, and has been discusses in multiple nontrivial sources that are found at the bottom of the article. I have no problems with notability here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While ordinary murderers are generally underserving of articles, this is a special case. The article asserts sufficient notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic, well sourced, well written. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published sources indicate he is a person of considerable public interest <eleland/talkedits> 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are special consideration here indeed--it might be this case which leads to the change in the felony murder rule. DGG (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is legally notable, it should be available. Would you take away a wiki page for Sacco and Vanzetti? --King Greebo (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is brief and factual. I disagree about the way the term "felony murder" is used in this case -- in my opinion "accomplice accountability" is more appropriate -- but it is a common confusion these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.96.157 (talk) 21:48, 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. east.718 at 23:06, December 14, 2007

List of ThunderClan Cats[edit]

Basically a list of unsourced info and fancruft. Should be a similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of RiverClan Cats. ~ Bella Swan 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Warriors Wiki as we did with the RiverClan Cats page. Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? Not all people support your opinion of what this article is. Also, what to the "Warriors Wiki"? If it isn't there, why transfer it? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but this is just something to think about. mario 0 man 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least thin down a lot. I've been following this article for a while - checking the talk page will lead you to some of the discussions I've had about meeting guidelines (primarily WP:WAF and [[WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). I tried putting up the In-Universe tag but, as an inexperienced editor, I completely forgot about the tag after placing it and didn't get into the discussion until a little later than I would have liked. Basically, we didn't reach much of a consensus and I decided to let sleeping dogs lie for a little while. I returned to the page to attempt a second discussion about the topic and received no responses from the regular editors (of which there are many). Ultimately, I feel that this article contains a great deal of plot summary and unencyclopedic. The books might be notable, but until there is some significant outside coverage of just this clan of cats, notability is not inherited. bwowen talk•contribs 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —bwowen talk•contribs 06:30, 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. Per WP:MUSIC, just "being a single" is not enough on its own. This song appears to have little other claim to notability. BLACKKITE 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (song)[edit]

Prod tag was removed from this non-notable song with the edit summary, "Removing prod - song is an actual 12" - check out their actual myspace page". I have no doubt the song is actual, but the page is unsourced and the song is not-notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [2] [3] [4] [5] are all links to buy the single. A quick look through their MySpace would have shown this. Question is what makes a song notable? It's being released as an single. There are no specific notability guidelines for the songs but I know there are still guidelines on how a song can be considered notable. It's being released as a single so it's notable in a sense. Douglasr007 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on Wikipedia's notability requirements. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or can you just wait until I can get more sources before issuing an AfD for the article? Discogs The single just came out. Douglasr007 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a song is not considered notable until it has charted. The article can be recreated then. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources on page, one sentence filler-type article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and would be much better merged into the album or band page. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Mere existence does not confer notability. Pedro : Chat 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook a duck[edit]

Insufficiently notable game found at kiddie carnivals. PKT (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into funfair - If you do a G-search, you'll find the odd source[6], but I wouldn't exactly say there's anything notable about the game. It could be covered well in the funfair article. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fridgecruft. In other words, this looks like an assignment from elementary or middle school that can be put with a magnet on the door of the fridge. Good job, keep writing, just don't post it on the door here. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:32, 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 lack of reliable sources. 1 != 2 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Saint-Onge[edit]

Montreal-based musician and composer. No reliable sources to back up claims of notability and touring. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable Québécois artist. ~~The grants he received have a reputation for being given to nobodies.~~ --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is a member of two sufficiently notable bands in the post-rock genre as well as a sufficiently notable experimental music group, and the statement that "the grants he received have a reputation for being given to nobodies" is a POV assertion that has no place anywhere near an evaluation of notability. Further, the lack of sources in the article is not a valid deletion reason if a Google search on the subject does return valid sources that can be added to it. Accordingly, I have to go with the keep here. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say one of his collaborators, Michel Côté, is more than sufficiently notable. But Saint-Onge's own notability is borderline, and, since his bands are mentioned in other articles, I would give him no more than a redirect. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you propose to redirect a person who's simultaneously associated with three different groups? And by the way, are you able to confirm that Michel Côté the musician and Michel Côté the politician are the same person? Because if they're not, then the politician is the wrong link to provide. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got the wrong guy? Bad me. Actually, I'm surprised that there is no article yet on Michel F. Côté, the musician and actor (who is actually more notable as a movie actor than as a musician). As for where to redirect Saint-Onge, I would say that since he is only a part-time devotee to these three bands, the redirect would go towards the one to which he gives the most time, with a mention of the other two in the article about it. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Bearcat, allow me to clarify. Both a google and a google news search do not turn up any reliable third party sources. When I personally cite lack of sources as a reason, I mean I've done my homework and looked for them. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two of us clearly has access to a unique personal Google that isn't the same one the rest of the world has, then. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to the reliable sources you have found? ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— insufficient notability asserted; lack of reliable sources of verify current content/notability. — ERcheck (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 12:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxcroft Academy[edit]

single paragraph stub over a year old - should be merged into Maine School Administrative District 68 Arthurrh (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep School is a rather-old school, approaching 200 years, and the article makes credible claims of notability. As additional material and sources are added, I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All nominators have an explicit responsibility under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research potential claims of notability and to edit and improve the article as appropriate. A simple check of links to the article showed several notable alumni, most of them Congressman. A good faith effort to exercise the obligations of the nominator will help ensure that further unjustified AfDs are not submitted. Alansohn (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources establish notability for mine and well done to User:Alansohn for adding them. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable alumni + faculty generate notability for the institution. Well Cited. Do not merge. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:38, 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. --Angelo (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cogsley Farnesworth[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. This article has been unreferenced for more than six months. Listing at afd after contested prod. {{prod}} was removed after adding a single reference with no footnotes. The offered reference appears to be self-published. Mikeblas (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For both of the reasons above. --SimpleParadox (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for sources for the article content and did not find anything but lists of of failed motorcycle companies. Fails WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 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. --Angelo (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Rochester[edit]

Note: This article was originally tagged for AfD by User:GeorgeLouis, but did not appear to be followed through. I am doing so partly as a procedural nomination, but also as an actual nomination.

Delete. Subject does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. There are 6 results for a Google search of "Brian L Rochester" and 72 "unique" results for Rochester "Joey Jenkins". Subject has been noted in publications, however, they are of mostly local interest. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Creation and single editing interest of user "Blrochester" - WP:COI issues? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because no notability established and research does not support notability. (WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, btw.) --Lquilter (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that wikipedia limited articles to national vs. regional or local interest items. Definitely censureship and highly unpatriotic. Request entry of this article due to the local publicity referenced in the article.--Blrochester (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Censureship"? Do you mean "censorship"? What on earth does writing an encyclopedia and determining notability have to do with either censorship or patriotism? At any rate, thank you for pointing out the local sources. I'd like to point out WP:BIO which elaborates on notability criteria for individual people. In particular, see the "Creative professionals" section. Nothing in the current article suggests that Brian L. Rochester is (a) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; (b) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; (c) created ... a significant or well-known work ... (d) the person's work has won significant critical attention (emphasis mine). Can you, "Blrochester", fairly and in good faith claim that the article meets or is likely to meet those criteria? --Lquilter (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And quickly. It's not even an article at this point, it reads like a resume. No notability established, no resources. Snowfire51 (talk) 18:39, 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. Waggers (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chiarello[edit]

This article has been unreferenced for more than six months and is a BLP problem. The subject has won a few awards and has some publications, but nobody has bothered to provide references substantiating anything in the article. As such, the article remains a WP:BLP problem and should be deleted.

Further, two WikiProjects claimed this article, one about 18 months ago and the other about 14 months ago. Neither seems to have improved the article, and neither has assesed the article.

Prod was removed by User:DGG on 24 November, 2007 saying that one of the awards was cited, even though it wasn't (and still isn't, about three weeks later). Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NCS award is sort of indirectly sourced, in that you can click on the link to National Cartoonists Society page and follow the links to this. Zagalejo^^^ 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourceable. The tag changed to verify. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--ZeWrestler ^Talk 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's the issue with BLP? Hiding T 22:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chatterjee[edit]

Unreferenced for more than six months, this article is a WP:BLP problem. Prod was removed on 14 November, 2007 by User:Moheroy with the comment "removed PROD, this seems to be a notable person" even though the article has zero citations. The article still has zero citations about three weeks later. Mikeblas (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Addhoc (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Incidentally, the professor of metabolic medicine and endocrinology at Cambridge University, who has the same name is possibly notable. However delete this version. Addhoc (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO Jeepday (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any sources to even meet WP:V. RMHED (talk) 15:25, 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 then recreate as redirect to Battle for Ozzfest. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Dozen Furies[edit]

I don't think simply competing on Battle for Ozzfest and the release of a single album satisfies WP:MUSIC, although it may arguably satisfy criteria 12. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Dozen_Furies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, about 25,000 other bands on metal-archives.com can claim equal notability. That's another 25,000 articles wikipedia does not need. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to Battle for Ozzfest, which they did win. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle for Ozzfest They did win a reality tv show of marginal notability. Ok, so they can be discussed there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 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. --Angelo (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RisingDark[edit]

Non-notable game. —Animum (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't see how this meets WP:N and also may be crystal-ballery. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery, article itself admits that a finished product would probably be released in 2011. No reliable sources apparent in article or from a google search to satisfy notability. Article mentions "Dominic Berd, a young Multimedia developer", article created by new account Berdy1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and a tertiary source, not MySpace or a free advertising medium. Someone another (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP WP:ADVERT User:Krator (t c) 14:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. ...one of the most ambitious gaming projects of the century. Right. Dchall1 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 20:55, 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, fails WP:NEO, does not have multiple reliable sources about the word(not just using it). 1 != 2 16:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak states[edit]

Once-off neologism. No real-world usage given. "Freak states" + Alaska + Hawaii gets 30 Ghits, most of them just quotes from the episode. sh ¤y 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a common enough term

I saw the deletion proposition before I read this, and I guessed this page was proposed for deletion because it is a neologism.

The term has been around for sometime, at least since 1994, so I don't know how "neo" the neologism is. Aside from the Simpsons reference, the term (singular or plural) is currently used here in Hawaii, particularly by people who often have to deal with the frustrating aspects of moving themselves, their goods, or others between Hawaii and the Mainland.

I would submit that the term is used often enough that it warrants having a definition and explanation provided for it. I live in Hawaii right now, and I've heard it often enough that I thought the background for it should be available online in Wikipedia; it is not a "once-off" term. While it is not as commonly used as "the lower 48" is on the Mainland, it is still in the same class.

Looking at it in its singular form, only citing Hawaii, there are 165 references on Google, if that matters. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22freak+state%22+Hawaii&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushibo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, though, and my understanding is that I can remove the deletion proposal by objecting to the deletion and stating reasons, which I have done above. My apologies if I'm doing this wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushibo (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the process for procedural deletion, not a deletion debate. People will chime in with their opinions about it and it will get closed after 5 days. With that said, Google News gets a bunch of hits for this phrase — perhaps people could find sources there? I don't have a US newspaper subscription service, so I'm out of luck. --Haemo (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no reliable sources found. I have found random uses of "freak states" to mean various other groupings of states for ad hoc reasons (e.g. Utah being full of Mormons). I even found it used for San Marino and Andorra. Probably most instances are just a passing Simpsons reference anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily redirect to Fear of Flying (The Simpsons) Will ^(talk) 20:45, 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 delete Bioelectrification, no consensus on blood electrification or merge into it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectrification[edit]

Not notable. Neologism. No sources seem to exist outside the proponents' own website. The mere existence of a patent does not make something notable. LeContexte (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fringe science. Merge with blood electrification. A method to neutralize HIV is something notable and worth mentioning somewhere, but the article doesn't have sufficient content for its own subject. =Axlq (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, Axlq, that can't be right - it is easy to come up with an extraordinary claim that, if true, would be notable (e.g. I am the son of God), but that does not make the claim itself notable. There needs to be evidence that the claim is referenced by third parties, and that is just not the case here. LeContexte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to delete blood electrification for the same reason - non-notable fringe science. I started by deleting the irrelevant and misleading sources which the article was linking to, but then realised this would leave no article at all. However when I tried to propose it for deletion I saw there had been a previous deletion discussion back in 2005. The decision was to retain; however the fact the article remains hopelessly unverified after two years means that this surely has to be reviewed. However I couldn't figure out how to propose it for deletion again... would be grateful for some help here! LeContexte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon reflection, I agree with you. I changed my entry to delete. =Axlq (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. due to notability as they are unsupported and undiscussed by reliable journal articles per WP:FRINGE. No reliable hits for both articles on Google, Google Scholar or PubMed. Links to PubMed in blood electrification is deceptive since it states something obvious to those who know biotechnology but not to laymen. they may be convinced to think that they are reliable sources. Yes they are RS but not for this article. Those links can be put to good use in electroporation where references are needed. (Note to nom: fix the other Afd on blood electrification, it redirects to the last one. Feel free to put my comment there once it is fixed)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something which 'cures' HIV would have rather more coverage than this if it was actually true. Nick mallory (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruel spam. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that Bioelectrification and Blood electrification need to be treated in the same way. Unless I'm missing something, they are the same thing, although the Blood electrification article is more substantial. If the concept is non-notable, both should be deleted. There are, though, quite a number of sources available to attest to the well-circulated nature of what I consider to be a hoax, not science. Since Blood electrification is not under consideration here, it might be best just to merge anything new from Bioelectrification into it, delete Bioelectrification, and see what it takes to either improve Blood electrification into something acceptable or, once more, propose it for deletion. Tim Ross·^talk 01:43, 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 none -- speedily deleted. (Non-admin account) technical closure. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics education[edit]

The article is an essay, full of original research and crystalballing. See for instance: "We anticipate continued growth and visibility of the field of statistics education as more research is conducted..." A comment by Dbenzvi (talk · contribs) on the article's talk page suggests that the article was based on J. Garfield and D. Ben-Zvi, "The discipline of statistics education", in C. Batanero (Ed.), Background Papers of the Joint ICMI /IASE Study on Statistics Education in School Mathematics: Challenges for Teaching and Teacher Education, University of Granada, Spain (2007). A ecis^Brievenbus 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not based upon that paper. It is that paper, copied almost word-for-word. Dbenzvi (talk · contribs) claims, on xyr user page, to be the D. Ben-Zvi who wrote the paper. We have no way to know that, nor any reason to care. What is important is the Wikipedia:No original research policy, which in part means that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It isn't the place for publishing unpublished academic papers. That's exactly what's happening here. When the academic paper is peer reviewed, fact checked, and published in a reputable academic journal, then it can become a source for a Wikipedia article on the subject. But copying unpublished, unreviewed, papers is not how a verifiable tertiary source encyclopaedia is created. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a journal. Delete and start again. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Plagiarism, possible copyvio. =Axlq (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete almost word for word copy of the paper by Garfield and Ben-Zvi, delete as plagiarism - Dumelow (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prod' it came out and it was declined, so of course I'll agree on AfD Mbisanz (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would have said personal essay but copyvio seems a better fit per above discussion. JJL (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedily delete. Give the author time to post permission. Then give time to change it from an essay into an encyclopedia article as he has said he will (see the talk page). Fg2 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please let the author know on the talk page of the article the sorts of problems you see with the article. Fg2 (talk) 00:46, 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, withdrawn by nominator, and move to Wathiq Naji. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wathik Naji[edit]

*Delete - This person appears to be not notable based on a simple Google search. The references are insufficient and it is not proper to use Wikipedia itself as a reference. In addition, the article is written like a resume and may be unencyclopedic. — Yavoh 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup, move to Wathiq Naji and then Keep. Julius Sahara (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the latter keep. It must be understood that out of English-speaking countries and out of the West google is of no help in indicating the notability of an individual, due to the force of systemic bias. Also, his career appears certainly notable; what must be searched now are reliable sources to confirm it.--Aldux (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Julius and Aldux. Yavoh, you should consider reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.macmillan (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added an English language reference that confirms he was the head coach. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and btw move to Wathiq Naji per Julius. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move made to Wathiq Naji by me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. International player and coach of a World Cup qualifying team. What more could you want for sporting notability? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After doing more thorough research and being barraged with evidence, I have to change my stance to keep. Next time I'll do more thorough research before prodding an article. Thanks for the information, everyone. — Yavoh 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dear all, I am working on this article to enhance it by converting some parts to essay writing and add the personal information, etc.(i have recent photo for Wathiq naji, Please Yavoh, Julius Sahara, Aldux, Paularblaster,TenPoundHammer advice me on how to add a photo to this article. By the way i added the article of the The Rovers Cup through wathiq naji's article. Ahmed

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:NOT. Keep opinions did not address the issue of it not being encyclopedic, we are not a dictionary. 1 != 2 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boratisms[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See similar discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugrats vocabulary (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefly slang words and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade: Dictionary. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supplement that explains part of what made the hit movie a hit (and what made it offensive to others). In most films, this type of spinoff is unnecessary. In this instance, part of the concept was that it was a foreign film that wasn't really a foreign film. Too large to be merged into Borat. Mandsford (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of misplaced or fractured language is well covered in the production section of the film article, including a number of representative examples. This is simply a glossary of those words. It is no different from the other deleted glossaries from other film and television projects whose AFDs are linked above. Otto4711 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to reference to reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encylopedias contain lists of factual information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of these have entered the lexicon, and if they did, they'd still be neologisms. People should be ashamed of themselves for parroting other people's creativity. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:Fee Fi Foe Fum basically says it all. - fchd (talk) 17:40, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Fielden[edit]

Article has been tagged as unreferenced since January, with no third-party sources appearing. I have checked Amazon for the band, and for Jerry Fielden himself, and also could find nothing in the Google news archives. So far I have been unable to find anything to confirm notability under WP:MUSIC or WP:N in general. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that this appears to fail WP:AUTO as well; the article's creator identifies himself as Jerry Fielden on the photo he uploaded to Miranie Morissette (who, by the way, is also of uncertain notability, as I can't find any verification for the claim that her album or single ever "climbed high in the Canadian charts".) Jerry's definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:N. The creator, Slugguitar (talk · contribs), identifies himself as Jerry Fielden on his user page. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:MUSIC; note that the article also seems to provide advertising for the subject's mother (an author of uncertain notability), and links to her website. Mind matrix 01:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—User:Slugguitar offered this as evidence of independent coverage of the band AraPacis. I read through what was there; as far as I can tell, all the features were on blogs, not in the realm of reliable sources. Someone else may want to double-check my read of that, though. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All blogs and webzines. Bearcat (talk) 01:36, 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 No Consensus to Delete. Disagreement over whether the two books used as references establish notability. Would strongly recommend removing most of the redlinks as an editing decision. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Allis-Chalmers tractors[edit]

No assertion of notability; just a list of tractors (all but one of them redlinks) made by a particular company. Before anyone cites WP:OSTRICH: no, I don't know much about tractors, but this seems a clear WP:IINFO violation. The topic appears to be far too specific, esoteric and of narrow interest to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uninformative list of model numbers, possible copyvio from the sources given at the bottom, which are books. Redlinkfarm. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of people are vintage tractor enthusiasts (I've been dragged to enough ploughing matches to know that). This topic may be of limited interest to most Wikipedians, but that does not mean that large numbers of people in the real world would not be interested in it. The article is sourced from two published books [7] [8]. The "also bought" section in those Amazon pages shows there is a market for these type of books, which shows notability. There is absolutely no proof of a copyvio from these books, especially since there are two references. Category:Lists of automobiles shows that there is precedent for this type of article. A redlinkfarm is a good reason for keeping the article, since it shows where Wikipedia is missing articles in a generally under-represented part of Wikipedia. Bláthnaid 11:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plow this under. Lots of subjects have books written about them. That doesn't mean they should all be included. Are these specific models of tractor notable enough for standalone articles? Not at all likely, so there's no reason to keep a redlink farm to show what's missing. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of a list--one point of a list--isfor items that are not sufficiently notable for an article.DGG (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but are the redlinks needed? Without them, I'd be more open to keeping. Biruitorul (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian cricket league[edit]

Non-notable cricket league which consists of only four teams. No independent, verifiable sources. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Estonia national cricket team (which probably ought to move to a more grammatically well-formed title). This would appear to be a national league that sends players to international competition; the players probably do compete semi-professionally or at a high enough level to meet WP:BIO; and if the players are notable, the league surely is. I suspect that further sources can be found, but I wouldn't know them if I saw them, because they are likely in Estonian. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I could live with a merge with the national team article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, its a recently created competition, has only four teams and all coming from the same city. The standard of playing is probably crap. But I lean toward keep since it's a "national, first level league" in a major team sport. Julius Sahara (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google comes up with nothing at all on the Estonian cricket league. [9] There are no sources in the article either and the names of at least two of the team captains suggests that this is a hoax. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources uncovered by Julius Sahara. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there could be more sources. But please explain what's so fishy about those names? There are external sources linking those names with estonian cricket [10] [11] [12] [13]. Julius Sahara (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep top level national league for a recognised sport. There is a mention of the league (upcoming fixtures) on the Estonian Cricket Club (their national cricket organisation) here. - Dumelow (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several third party sources as shown by Julius Sahara. Why are the captain's names indicative of a hoax Capitalistroadster? Nick mallory (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anglicised names such as Tim Heath together with no sources suggested that. However, the sources uncovered by Julius Sahara have changed my mind. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:27, 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 keep. John254 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solarwolf[edit]

Non-notable self-released freeware video game. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Google search only comes up with file download sites and no criticism or analysis. Chardish (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I described on the Solarwolf talk page:

On 01:54, 8 December 2007 user "Chardish" marked the article with "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Non-notable video game. Fails verifiability." TEG went through the same thing: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tenes_Empanadas_Graciela. I'll quote from there: "without going into depth of what constitutes notability in FLOSS apps, this app appears in various Linux distro listings". The same is true for Solarwolf:

Debian

Ubuntu (universe repository)

Fedora

etc.
Also...
Marcel's Linux Game of the Month (June 2006) article from UnixReview.com
Linux Game Tome entry
Thus, notable enough. -- Limulus (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit disturbed that Chardish ignored my comments there and immediately moved to have the page removed rather than specifically discussing the links. IMHO if its in Ubuntu's repositories, that alone makes it notable as a Linux game. Also, please note that Solarwolf is not "freeware" but rather "free software" in the libre sense (there is a big difference! The free software article states "freeware is proprietary software made available free of charge. One can use, but not study, modify or redistribute freeware.") Solarwolf is (somewhat unusually) released under the "GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1" -- Limulus (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) So... KEEP :) -- Limulus (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu's repositories contain literally thousands of programs, not all of which are notable. Thus inclusion there cannot confer notability. Furthermore, UnixReview.com is not a reliable source, and the Linux Game Tome is self-published, harming its reliability. I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project. - Chardish (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ubuntu's repositories contain thousands of programs, but their inclusion in the Ubuntu project means that they have some sort of importance. It is perhaps your *opinion* that some are not notable, but it is mine that if they are there, they are. Your attitude towards this article is very condescending BTW ("I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project.") I assume this is because of your self-description as a "deletionist". Personally I consider you a censor, the kind if left unchecked will gut Wikipedia by deleting perfectly good articles and stubs rather than expending the effort required to fix them; what's worse is that your mischief is far more difficult to control than the vandals'; you think that what you're doing is the right thing to do... -- Limulus (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that you've attacked my personal behavior instead of discussing the merits of this article. Stop, immediately. - Chardish (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Second?) Listen, I tried to address your concerns on the talk page ("rv; yes, it is notable enough (sigh) please see talk page."), but rather that responding, you immediately moved to have the page deleted. I replied here too and your only counter-argument was "I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project." which really says nothing other than a vague appeal to authority. Suggestion: please directly respond to the criticisms of your initial listing of the Solarwolf article here:

"freeware": no, not freeware; its software libre under the LGPL. Do you have an idea of how rare good software libre games are? (they really are few and far between ):
"Google search only comes up with file download sites": Do you consider the inclusion of Solarwolf in various Linux distributions to count only as "file download sites"? At what point does a Linux game become notable?
"and no criticism or analysis.": I provided a link to unixreview.com (which I found by Google, BTW). You said that it "is not a reliable source". Based on what? I did a quick search and UnixReview is referenced as a source by the following articles: Streamtuner, Samizdat (book), Ayttm, AlphaWindows. UnixReview has articles going back to the beginning of 2000, so its not like they're new. Also, note the logo in the upper left hand corner of the UnixReview.com site; its part of United Business Media, apparently a MAJOR UK-based media corp that's almost 90 years old. (update: I note via [14] that Unix Review was at least at one point an actual print publication: "UNIX Review is a monthly magazine that covers the latest in UNIX technologies. It contains useful information for both UNIX developers and administrators. The magazine covers many aspects of UNIX-based systems, including software, hardware, peripherals, and support services." -- Limulus (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)) This is "not a reliable source"? "Someone another" provided one to gamespy.com Are you saying that's not reliable too? If so, what sort of publication are you looking for then?[reply]

-- Limulus (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The threshold of inclusion is having enough reliable, secondary sources to write a neutral article. See WP:N, and WP:V. --Phirazo 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phirazo, your comment above is a common misconception, as you connect two related, but not to this extent, parts of Wikipedia policy. The following is true (rephrased):

The threshold of inclusion is having been covered by reliable secondary sources
Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable.

The connection you make between the two does not exist. What happens often, especially in the area of WP:VG, is that some subjects are notable by virtue of coverage in secondary sources (say, Gamespot), and then primary sources such as the game's manual and the official website are used as sources in the article. This practice is allowed per WP:SELFPUB. By way of summary, in order to be notable, the coverage of a subject in secondary sources does not have to extend so far as to be able to source the whole article. It needs to extend far enough to provide notability. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought all the content policies dovetail into each other. A subject needs to be notable and verifiable to have an article in Wikipedia. --Phirazo 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. It is just not notable in order to be verifiable. User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Convinced by Limulus of the notability of the subject. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not convinced that being distributed in linux dists. is helpful, at all, in either establishing notability or actually giving something to write about. Linux game tome does nothing apart from list a few details, it gives no critical analysis and again isn't a source which establishes any notability. However the Unix Review link found by Limulus looks dandy, and I'll match it with this GameSpy article, snap! Someone another (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora - and probably other *n?x dists. Marcel Gagné endorsement is Automatic Notability in my book. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - game has established minimal notability. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:07, 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 Delete. BLACKKITE 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues[edit]

Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person; fails WP:BIO (no substantive coverage). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Was old. Is now dead. Greswik (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I didn't think death has much to do with reverse notability. Neal (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep In the top 100. Rare being from Cape Verde. Immigrated. Notable. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. None of those points is anything to do with the tests set out in WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  - Local celebrity, then? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For goodness sake Kitia, please read WP:BIO. There is no evidence in reliable sources that she was a celebrity even at her own dinner table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? After searching hard I found about 5 sources in print, whic I added to the article. So let's close this Afd since apparently verifiability is the issue. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see, the references are all trivial. I'm also curious about the way they are bunched together rather than referencing particular points. Have you actually seen any of these references, or is this a list which someone else sent you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some are trivial, but most are not. The clumped is as per Richard Norton. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per what by Richard Norton Kitia? - Galloglass 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per his recent edits at the recent old people discussions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitia (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. OK, let's look at the these references:

O. Tracy, 1958: a mention in a letter which covers 2 pages in a book. Trivial.
E. Mosteller, 1958: cited in support of the paragraph "She lived on her own until she was 107. Outliving her own children, she would eventually succeed another immigrant, fellow 114-year-old Grace Clawson (who was born in England), as the oldest documented person in the U.S. when the latter died in May 2002." This is transparent nonsense: a book published in 1958 could not know what happened 40 years later, and it is at best ridiculous to cite it as a ref for that para.
Vivian Sloan, letter from Lemon Grove, California. Primary source, does not establish notability (even if we knew what its contents were). Also, Kitia, please can you explain how you come to cite this letter. What is it about? Where is it published? Have you even seen its contents?
"Nazarene Woman, 115, May Be World's Oldest Person," Holiness Today, magazine of the Church of the Nazarene. That's the in-house magazine of her own order, and as such is not independent of the subject, so does not establish notability
Adelina Domingues, Oldest American, Dies at 114 A 239 word obit reprinted from the LA Times. 239 words is not substantial coverage
Adelina Domingues, Oldest American, 114 431 AP wirestory obit quoted on a third-party website from CNN.

So far as I can see, some of these refs (#2 and #4) do not belong here at all, #1 and #3 are irrelevant to notability, so a claim to notability rests solely on the two obituaries. If they are actually independent, then she might just squeeze through WP:BIO, but the LA Times story looks to me like it might be an earlier version of the AP wirestory. No author is listed for the LA Times story, but if it can be established that the LA Times report is indeed intellectually independent of the AP wirestory, then I would accept this as a case of borderline notability which should be merged to List of American supercentenarians.

However, I remain very concerned about the provenance of the other references. Kitia, please do explain how you come to cite those other references, because while I want to assue good faith, there is something very odd about them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Kitia. Not a great explaination, though. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE. RMHED (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BIO simply not notable. - Galloglass 13:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she had been the oldest person ever then she may have been notable, but she wasn't. So she's just another old lady. And old ladies do not currently meet WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. Kitia I really recommend reading WP:BIO for future reference. - Galloglass 14:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that being older than Edna Parker is not a policy, but I am using it as one because we do not have one on supercentenarian articles. We need to create ones because this is really becominga problem. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the guidelines, but with the fact that some editors have been busy creating numerous stub articles about very old people, which either have little to say or which appear to involve a lot of original research. Please do read WP:NOTE and WP:BIO to learn more about the concept of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with Galloglass, was not even certified as the oldest person living.--Aldux (talk) 20:56, 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 article requires fixes and has been tagged, but notability of super centenarians seems intrinsic. Pedro : Chat 15:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delvina Dahlheimer[edit]

Under-referenced stub, more suitable to a list entry than an article. No substantial coverage, so fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Greswik (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oldest in Minnesota, and relative of another Minnesota super-c.
Keep Living to be 113 years old is remarkable enough alone, but to have a sister-in-law who did the same in the same area is very rare. Delvinas husband, Philip Dahlheimer (1889-1974), was the brother of Catherine Hagel. It alomst never happens that two people reach the age of 110 in the same family. Keep the article! ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comment below, where is the evidence that they are in the same family? There is no reference for any of the "facts" in this article other than her dates of birth+death. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE, will never be more than a stub. RMHED (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect. Under most circumstances, I'd agree this article should be deleted, however I wonder if WP:IDONTKNOWIT can come into effect here, as WP:LOCALFAME clearly does not. Usually, a supercentarian is deleted as a sole holder of non-notability, however, in this case there are actually 2 holders of notability, in Catherine Hagel and her sister Delvina Dahlheimer. Her deceased sister was the oldest in Minnesota. Catherine now the 8th in the world, 5th in the United States, and 1st in Minnesota after beating her sisters' record. I would actually be okay with a double-Redirect to a secondary article such as The Dahlheimer Sisters where their notability as supercentarians is put together and perhaps expanded from there. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I have seen no reference in a reliable source for the claim that the two are sisters-in-law. The only non-trivial reference for either of them is this one on Catherine Hagel, which doesn't mention Delvina. It does say that her Hagel's father's name was Dahlheimer, but that coincidence of name is not evidence of a family connection, so I have tagged that fact as original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 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, keep arguments did not address the lack of reliable sources backing up the claim of notability. Only source is itself unsure of the facts.. 1 != 2 16:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Brett, Jr.[edit]

Fails WP:BIO (no substantial coverage in relaible sources; one of the two refs provided is trivial, and the other is a dead link to a website apparently maintained by the editor who added the link, and appears in any case to be content reposted from a mailing list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep. The results of these AfDs have shown that being the oldest person at one period in time in a single state is considered notable. Thus, oldest person in the world would be. --Smashville^BONK! 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The two recent examples I have seen are both being contested at DRV. In any case, AfD is not bound by precedent, and what's the point of keeping an article which will remain unreferenced against reliable sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are the ones I tried...Elias Wen, Emma Carroll, and Consuela Moreno Lopez. I withdrew the noms when I saw the way they were heading. --Smashville^BONK! 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But of course, why take into account for "keep, because I like it!" Not many people are capable of throwing in reasons besides a vote. Anyways, you're not the closing admin for the articles you nominate for AfD, so you're not the 1 to ask. Neal (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      - Did I say I was? I just said you'd have a hard time getting it deleted. --Smashville^BONK! 18:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Notice the article say it is not even sure he was as old as he claimed to be, so the entire record seems like a hoax... Oldest person to undergo surgery does not make you notable, I would say. Greswik (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly oldest person in the world is definately notable. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable old person. Who may not even have been as old as supposed. RMHED (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No substantial reliable sources to establish the notability that the article admits may not even exist. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep abd reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The point of this nom, I believe, is that it can't be referenced better. Cheers, CP 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BIO simply not notable. - Galloglass 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary comment In regards to this debunking page.. I'm a bit mad at Guinness. I find it amazing that no one from Guinness offices have yet to show their proof of claims of this person (after it was debunked by their own member, Robert Young). Or in other words, Guinness can't simply say so and so was the oldest person in the world and not provide proof for it if needed. The fact that Robert Young works for Guinness and still cannot get them to provide documentation is... If this person really was not 111, but ~96, then he wouldn't have set the record for the highest surgery at time, either, so that's a double loss. Neal (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep longevity claim, is still possibly oldest for that period. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep as per, well, pretty much everyone who voted keep. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep we are not bound by precedent, but we should be consistent. This and other articles on the oldest people at any given time in the world are notable. The nom might perhaps show the judgment to just nom the ones that are likely to be deleted. Otherwise it looks like a crusade. DGG (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some have been deleted in the past as well. It's based not on subjective judgment, but on how many sources could be found (hence why I've !voted keep, delete or not commented at all on various different deletions). Cheers, CP 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to DGG. The assertion that oldest people "are notable" misunderstands how WP:BIO works: the fundamental requirement is that there is enough substantive material in reliable sources to allow a properly-referenced article to be written, and being "the oldest" is an assertion of notability, not evidence of it. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable sources to provide evidence of notability you claim? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:09, 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 Consensus to keep. 1 != 2 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Primeval[edit]

This list of fictional species does not assert notability through the inclusion of real world information, and it is full of mostly primary and trivial information. The topic is covered in the main article (there is one good source that can be placed there), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's reasonably well written and is sourced. — Rudget _speak.work 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All besides two of them are used source primary information. The one good one that I mentioned talks about how they were changed for dramatic effect (it's used like five times, but it's the same thing over and over), and the other one is about background for a computer, which really isn't necessary. TTN (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - after reviewing the comment above and the article's and it's sources, I believe delete would be the best option, but the comments that the supporters make (as me before) do make logic. — Rudget _speak.work 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its sourced and your claim that its not primary information is irrelivant. A source is a source regardless. Nubula (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Primary sources can be used to source content, but they do not assert notability. TTN (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has receved significant coverage as their are three websites, all of which are official, interviews with the creators and press releases that have made it into the national papers. Nubula (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the creatures have real world information, please add it. Currently, only one source is used to assert notability, and that is more of a general thing anyways. If you're trying to say that by having primary information covered in reliable sources is enough, then that assertion is wrong. TTN (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of what I stated is already in the article. This is just you moving your own goalposts. Nubula (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we delete this, we would have to delete nearly every page about nearly every fictional scenario described on Wikipedia. The pages Episode 1 (Primeval)‎ Episode 2 (Primeval) Episode 3 (Primeval) Episode 4 (Primeval) Episode 5 (Primeval) Episode 6 (Primeval) are also at risk here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: I had to revert those 6 episode pages to their full text after User:TTN changed them to redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And thus we see the problem with using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING as a rationale for keeping an article - somebody may take you seriously and delete the other stuff. --Phirazo 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just give it a free ride because it cannot pass our policies and guidelines? TTN (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With your evasions any attempt at guidlines is pointless. I mentioned the fact that it has referances from three websites, all of which are official, behind the scenes interviews with the creators and press releases that have made it into the national papers as well as referances to scientific journals and one scientific website and you just dismissed them out of hand. But feel free to move your goalposts yet again. Nubula (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do not provide real world information, so they are irrelevant. They need to provide information to actually count towards anything. Feel free to ask on any notability guideline talk page if you don't believe me. TTN (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. This is the goal post moving I mentioned earlier. You demand real world data and then dismiss it when its brough to you. This has nothing to do with guidlines or rules but you looking for any excuss to delete this page. Nubula (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem here is that TTN's using insider shorthand, which you are quite naturally reading to mean something other than intended. By "real world information," he means not information that exists outside of the broadcasts, but that exists outside of the series+producers+broadcaster -- that is to say, that someone, such as a reviewer or critic, has found these specific creatures worth commenting on. A producer's website is a valid source for information about the creatures, but shows promotional materials don't show that OTHER people think it's notable -- because it's in the promoter's interest to insist it is. Does this explanation help? (Note to TTN and others: When it becomes obvious that you and someone are talking past each other, STOP TALKING IN SHORTHAND AND ABBREVATIONS. It'll save a lot of time and frustration all around.) —Quasirandom (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what he means and I'm pointing out that its not true. He demands data from other sources but then refuses to exept any of it when its brought to him for reasons he refuses to state other than he's using his own definations of what counts and moving his goalposts when someone meets that criteria. Nubula (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list is a better option than individual pages for each creature. Wikipedia has individual pages for some of the most obscure characters in barely notable TV shows. If I had my way, I would like one main page for a show, one page of episode summaries, and one page for the characters/monsters/whatever, rather than gobs of pages spread over kingdom come with no editorial oversight. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either vote to keep it or vote to delete it. Because your cluttering up the page with opinons which mean nothing if you don't vote one way or the other. Nubula (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFD, Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. This isn't about voting, it's about discussing. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable. Unencyclopaedic. Go write about the real creatures, folks. --Jack Merridew 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be said that there can not easily be totally direct real-world information about any fictional event: e.g. I cannot go onboard the USS Enterprise and ask Picard or Worf what really happened in this or that incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And whats worse, when we do find the data they ask for, which does meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; they dismiss it as trivial or irrelevant (or simply outright lie like TTN). Clearly working on their own personal beliefs rather than what the rules state. And naturaly they never define what they would accept, so that if its found, they promptly move the goalposts and declare no-score. Nubula (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the articles, not the editors (independent of if you're right or wrong with your assertions). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Longstanding consensus holds that information on minor elements from fiction should be covered in list pages like this rather than individual pages for each entry or in the main article. Wikipedia is not paper. You will not find articles on every species of Bat in Brittanica, but you would find them in an 'encyclopedia of bats'... and you find them in Wikipedia. We have room to be an 'encyclopedia of bats' in addition to a 'general reference encyclopedia'. And we have room to be an 'encyclopedia of Primeval' too. Again, this has been consensus for years. IMO recent attempts to change the guidelines to prevent encyclopedic coverage of fiction are being disruptively pushed against consensus. --CBD 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, thank you, CBD, for pointing out that there was/is consensus for these types of lists. TTN, I have no problem with you nominating the individual characters for deletion, one at a time, but you have to give the fan editors someplace to go. If you back them into a corner, they'll bite. If you let them have these lists, little harm is down to Wikipedia. Think about it; thousands to millions of people watch these shows. Some of them might want to know something about a dinosaur they saw on the show. So they come to Wikipedia, and if their search term doesn't get them directly to List of creatures in Primeval then they'll try Primeval, and there will be a link to the List. Now imagine if the list is deleted. All it takes is one newbie to create yet another (probably horribly written and definitely unsourced) individual page on a fictional character, which is the opposite of what you want. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the game is sufficiently notable--which I cannot judge personally. Having these combination articles is a good compromise. I accept Fee Fi Foe Fum 's reasoning--of the ways to handle this perennial problem, this seems the most suitable. let';s all agree on this for everything that itsnt really specially individually notable in a game, merge into combination articles, and stop wasting everyones time on these afds. Working joinly on a project takes compromise. DGG (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's grown well and gotten sourced since I started it. This is as notable as, say, List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. GracieLizzie (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact that this list is currently inchoate does not affect its notability or relevance. It needs a chance to grow a little and if it fails to develop, can be AfD'd at a later stage. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:27, 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 No consensus. 1 != 2 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Potiropoulos[edit]

Delete - the assertion of notability involves prizes and distinctions won in architectural competitions of unknown importance and contributions to subparts of larger architectural projects. The article seems by its nature promotional and would have to be totally rewritten to achieve a neutral tone.

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - per nom. Has the tell-tales of vanity. Greswik (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now -- I checked Google News archives and Google Scholar, coming up empty with both. Nevertheless, these buildings look like important commissions and I suspect this guy is notable, notwithstanding the COI issue. I've added this to both the Greece and architecture deletion sorts -- perhaps someone knowledgeable of Greece and/or architecture will join in. The Greek Wikipedia article, el:Δημήτρης Ποτηρόπουλος, appears similar and was also edited by a new, single purpose editor, Whiplash. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References establish notability, for both articles. An article needing to be rewritten is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason to rewrite, which any editor can do. --Lquilter (talk) 21:01, 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, disagreement over whether the sources establish notability or not. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Bidwell[edit]

Unreferenced stub on an old person, fails WP:BIO test of substantive coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other such articles featured on the List of the oldest people. ^Dlae│_here 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am going through those lists nominating any such articles; the fact that some have not yet been deleted is not a reason for keeping this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the content could be merged into a list of American supercentaurians, like List of British supercentenarians? ^Dlae│_here 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that, but whenever I perform such a merger it is reverted without comment by User:Kitia, so I see no point in wasting my time trying to preserve these unreferenced snippets when other editors prefer edit-warring to improvement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of things, Kitia seems "confused" or may well be a 114-year old their self. Considering how notable the Mary Bidwell article is, stub or not (unlikely to get much further), if the user intefers with the merger again, "enforce policy". > The content is concise, which is quite suitable for the list if I don't say so myself. ^Dlae│_here 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. I have almost 100 years before I turn 114. And I wanted to delete that "list" in the first place because it's not very much of one at all. Of this article, I don't really care what you do to it because it doesn't really say much. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I switch my vote to a Keep because of this pretty good source: http://www.bidwellhousemuseum.org/Articles/mary_electa_bidwell.htm The article needs work though, but being older than Edna Parker is now warrants an article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That's not exactly substantial coverage (only 350 words, mostly trivia) and it's not a reliable source. Plus, I don't see WP:BIO listing "being older than Edna Parker" as proof of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nomination and try to reference better. If your voting delete, please do a Google search at the minimum. How can you vote without doing the minimal due diligence? This is also a bad faith nomination over frustration during an edit war. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Norton, please do try to learn a bit of a bit of basic good manners and to assume good faith. This is not a bad faith nomination: it was a good faith nomination of an unreferenced article, one of dozens and dozens of unreferenced stubs created on older people by editors who seem to entirely reject WP:BIO. I tried to draw attention to this problem by tagging the articles for improvement, but the tags got deleted; I tried to preserve the info in the under-referenced articles by merging them, and it was only when all other efforts were blocked that I nominated them at AfD. That's not revenge, it's the last choice option for dealing with unreferenced stubs which cannot be improved, and this one had existed for 4 years; it was tagged as unreferenced in the summer, and has been edited by all the editors who claim the greatest expertise in this area. I assumed that if there were refs, they would have supplied them at some time in the last 4 years.
  Now to your references. First, can you explain why three of them for which provide a retrieval date do not provide the URL from which you retrieved them, so that they can be verified? Secondly, even if a local museum website is a reliable source, is it really evidence of notability that she gets a writeup in a website on her ancestor's house? Doesn't seem very independent to me. Thirdly, less than half of the 591-word NYT article is devoted to Bidwell, which is hardly substantial coverage. Maybe the other refs are more substantial, but there is no way of knowing unless you provide the links ... and so far, although notability is closer than when I made the nomination it is not yet established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BIO simply not notable. - Galloglass 13:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's because there is no notability guideline on super-cs. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per richard and Kitia above. You've Got Mail! (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources cited with evidence to notability. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Keep, per the references provided below. Neal (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per BHG. --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I accept the noms GF, but the principle of deleting because they've been here a while without improvement does not seem reasonable, if it seems they are individually notable. There seems to be at least minimal sourcing here. Lets get rid of the worst of these--actually--I think BHG's good work has already gotten rid of the worst of these, and not turn this into a campaign against all articles of the type. I suggest this would be a good time to stop on these--enough has been accomplished. DGG (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, DGG. I suggest that this is a good point to step back from the history of how we got here, and look at what we have now. After all the extra references, we have only a 135-word article, which says in full (when collapsed to one para):
  Mary Electa Bidwell (May 9, 1881 - April 25, 1996) was an American supercentenarian. She died at 114 years and 352 days, making her the 25th oldest person to ever live and the oldest American living at the time of her death. She was also the oldest person ever to die in Connecticut. Her parents were Charles Woodruff Bidwell and Alice Beach Nobel. She was a descendant of John Bidwell, one of the founders of Hartford, Connecticut. Bidwell worked as a teacher in a one-room school house for six years. She married Charles Hubbell Bidwell, a distant cousin, in 1906. Bidwell lived on her own in North Haven, Connecticut until she was 110. Bidwell died at the Arden House, a nursing home in Hamden, Connecticut. She was the last surviving person documented as born in 1881.
  Perusing all the references, that's probably all that can ever be said about her without indulging in either original research or copyvio by reproducing an excessive proportion of one of the source articles.
  The result is at best marginally notable, but it's a well-sourced snippet. Surely the ideal thing to do with something like this which is trivial but fully-sourced is to include it as a paragraph in a merged list article? This mergeist approach has been followed very successfully by WikiProject Middle-earth, where a collaborative effort has been systematically mergeing the minor articles to these combined lists, such as the merger of many short articles to Kings of Númenor.
  To show how this works in the case of Mary Bidwell, I have copied the entire text with refs to List of American supercentenarians#Mary_Bidwell, where it forms one neat section. Surely this mergeist approach is preferable to having a proliferation of articles which will rarely expand beyond 100 or 200 words unless they include utterly trivial aspects of people's lives or commentaries on the era on which they lived? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the items further down the list, BHG is correct that there are still a number of articles that need to be deleted. I'd still keep this one. I wouldn't necessarily object to merges, but that of course could be done without coming here. As a general approach I agree with BHG in that DGG (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it hasn't been possible to merge without coming here, because Kitia simply reverted such merges on sight, and without comment. In many of these cases, I would much rather have merged or PRODed them than clog up AfD, but when any such efforts are simply reverted without discussion, then AFD is the only way to get a consensus decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 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.

References[edit]

^ "Life is Long". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-09. There are certain conventions to telling the oldest-living-American story. We feel compelled to note that Mary Bidwell, who died two weeks shy of her 115th birthday, had a weakness for coffee. ... Mrs. Bidwell's husband died at 93 in 1975; their only son had been dead since 1945. Mrs. Thompson outlived two husbands and several children.
^ "Mary Electa Bidwell. Oldest person in the USA". Bidwell House Museum. 1996. Retrieved 2007-12-09. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Mary Electa Bidwell, at 114, is the oldest person in the United States. Born in 1881, to Charles Woodruff Bidwell and Alice Beach Nobel, Mary Bidwell's life spans the time from kerosene lamps to home computers, from horse and wagons to automobiles.
^ "Mary Electa Bidwell". Washington Post. April 27, 1996. Mary Electa Bidwell, who in Nov 1995 was said to be the oldest living American woman, died Apr 25, 1996 at the age of 114.
^ "Mary Electa Bidwell, 114, was oldest living American". Associated Press. April 28, 1996. Mary Electa Bidwell, the oldest-living American, has died at 114. Mrs. Bidwell, born May 9, 1881, when James Garfield was president and Queen Victoria ruled half the world, died Thursday at a convalescent home in Hamden. Her grandson, William Bradford Bidwell, said she began to fail physically during the past two months. When the Guinness Book of Records recognized Mrs. Bidwell as the oldest-living American in November 1995, she said she did not have the answer to her ...
^ "Oldest US woman is 114, from Conneticut". Boston Globe. December 8, 1995. The Guinness Book of Records has recognized a Hamden woman as the oldest person in the United States. But 114-year-old Mary Electa Bidwell can't read about it yet because the 1996 edition already has gone to press. Bidwell was born on May 9, 1881, two months before President Garfield was shot. She isn't sure why she's lived so long, but she's proud of her achievement. I feel I must be very good indeed.

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

The result was Delete. Nothing here to pass WP:BIO. Not the first to reach 113 years of age, but possibly the second?. No. BLACKKITE 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Baker[edit]

Another inadequately referenced stub on an old person, fails WP:BIO test of substantive coverage in WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep easily established notability by being very old (the oldest alive in her time) a long time ago. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Sigh. Please, Kitia, do take time to read WP:BIO. Being very old does not establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, they totaly forgot about mentioning really old people in there. I don't think anyone would except deletion of Jeanne Calment as a good-faith nom, but what about these guys? They wer local celebrities, and I think I saw something somewhere about that warranting the article. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want to argue for a change to WP:BIO, you are free to do so at WT:BIO. But unless and until WP:BIO is changed, being old does not make up for lack of substantive coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think for WP:BIO to say, "1 must be the oldest person in the world to establish notability," or by longevity, is far too specific. For example, it also doesn't explicitt say 1 must be the tallest or heaviest person in the world. Anyways, I don't know how much of WP:BIO an article like this must pass. For example, it doesn't pass all of WP:BIO, as this person isn't a politician or composer. But if this person passes 1 sentence in WP:BIO, I assume it is not enough. Neal (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply See WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nom, historical case of extreme longevity. Has sorces and is cited as on of 500 famous Nebraskans. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the impression in the less than 24 hours you've been editing on wikipedia that this is a bad faith nomination? - Galloglass 01:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm awfully suspicious of this person. Neal (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm kinda new to this Wikipedia thing, so I thought that it would help me in the arguement, since it hasn't been going well. My case still stands, however. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its always best to assume good faith among other editors and in this case there are reasonable grounds for this AfD. That said, you are very welcome to take part in any and all discussions and the length of time you have edited is no handicap. And welcome to wikipedia. - Galloglass 23:37, 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, lacking reliable sources to demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Barnes[edit]

Stub article, no substantive coverage, so fails WP:BIO (it's a factoid rather than an article). I had been merging these stubs to List of American supercentenarians, to allow improvement a prelude to possible demeger, but the mergers have been immediately reverted by User:Kitia, so I suggest deletion instead, without prejudice to recreation if notability can be established per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Hmm...notability is asserted, just not referenced. I'll try and find what I can now. — Rudget _speak.work 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find is mirror sites, I can't seem to establish notability through citing reliable sources, which would verify any claims. — Rudget _speak.work 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge No extensive coverage in reliable sources. Nothing here that couldn't be adequately covered in one of the many supercentenarian lists on Wikipedia. Cheers, CP 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "third-oldest African American on record ever, and still holds the record for North Carolina's oldest person. Th" is not notable enough for a separate article. it's a shame we had to come here to do the merge--it would have been better if the ed. who objected and been willing to compromise.DGG (talk) 16:21, 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. east.718 at 23:10, December 14, 2007

Lydia Newton[edit]

Stub article, unreferenced since creation in september, fails WP:BIO (it's a factoid rather than an article). I had been merging these stubs to List of American supercentenarians, to allow improvement a prelude to possible demeger, but the mergers have been immediately reverted by User:Kitia, so I suggest deletion instead, without prejudice to recreation if notability can be established per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge I suppose if we close with a merge, we can over-ride that revert. But perhaps at this point Kitia might be willing to compromise--has she been asked again whether she still objects if the alternative is deletion? DGG (talk) 16:22, 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. east.718 at 23:10, December 14, 2007

Sheffield Universities Dancesport[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to be worthy of an article an organisation should have "been the subject of coverage in secondary sources". Unfortunately, I cannot find any sources for this article. Adambro (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I started this page ages ago, before I got into "Wikipedia policy". I guess it isn't notable, therefore I don't mind it being deleted. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and author. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:45, 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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Baenre[edit]

Non-notable fictional group. Listing at AfD after an unsigned objection to {{prod}} on the article's talk page. This group has insufficient third-party references to support a sustainable, substantial Wikipedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer that links, in cascade-like fashion, to various other previous discussions and arguments just about invariably resulting in these articles being retained... and, just a li'l bit of precedent. In an attempt to stave off some comments from the less-than-fully informed, from WP:PRECEDENT: "Whilst consensus can change, there is a broad body of precedent which can be drawn on for regularly recurring consensus that have been upheld in a variety of situations." Nominations of this type are nothing if not "regularly recurring" events these days, so the principle certainly applies. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely in-universe record of a non-notable fictional group. - fchd 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well written and accurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.172.166 (talk) 17:22, 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Zahakiel above, and my doubts as to the true reason mentioned on the discussion page. --Geofferic (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As above, a very well written and accurate article based on books written for Dungeons and Dragons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceruam (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do quite see the point made above, but disagree. Without reliable sources, I see no evidence of meeting the minimum threshold of {{WP:FICT]]. Pastordavid (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zaha puts it well. As to sourcing, simply paraphrasing the primary source for this sort of article is acceptable as long as there is no OR or synthesis. Orphic (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flossie Page[edit]

Notability not established per WP:BIO, so I merged it to List of American supercentenarians. Merger reverted twice, so I suggest deletion: this short snippet belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established as the oldest person ever in Kansas. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: If being a supercentenarian is no longer notable in and of itself then it should not exist as a category and any such names either listified or removed -- the same for centenarians, who are less notable even. Soxthecat (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please read WP:NOTE an WP:BIO: very few subjects are notable of themselves, they are notable because of the coverage they have recieved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HALT -- this article and another were unmerged from an article that passed notability, and were tagged for AFD as revenge from an administrator (BHG) for not merging them back in the vein of beauracracy run amuck. Read more at [[15]]. Guroadrunner (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not so. The article did not establish notability, so I merged it as an alternative to deletion. I nominated it for deletion because when unmerged it still failed to establish notability. There is no revenge involved; if the article passes WP:BIO, it should stay, but otherwise it should be merged or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Retraction. It appears that the articles are being duplicated with a fork from Kitia, hence why the AFD for these articles that were separated from the main list they belong in. Recommend merge. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrownHairedGirl Bad Faith Nomination. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you learn some basic manners, and not immediately leap to allegations of bad faith when you find references which both the article's creators and I had missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very well mannered, but I am not going to ignore a bad faith nomination to retaliate against your merger proposal, and I am not going to ignore sloppy research. You said you did research, and didn't find any references, but all I did was type the name into Google and found many reliable ones. When you nominate something for deletion, as opposed to using a reference tag, you are certifying that you thoroughly searched, and found no reliable sources. This wasn't the case. I can only think that you did it in haste or anger or both. I get angry and frustrated too, it is a part of being human. I read the comment you left:

"I have objection at all to unmerger if notability has been established per WP:BIO, but if you persist in simply reverting the merger without improving the articles to meet WP:BIO, then I will simply save myself the time and nominate them at AfD. ... Your call. ... It's a pity that you prefer to unmerge the articles rather than improve them, but both are now AFDed."

That, I believe, is a bad faith nomination. I am not against the merger of the smaller articles, but everyone has to perform some due diligence before they nominate, and it wasn't done here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As you ought to know, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are ill-mannered. The situation is simple: I could quite legitimately have simply started by nominating these article for AfD as notability-not-established, without going to all the trouble of trying to merge them and preserve the info when it did not meet the criteria for a standalone article. The conclusion I drew yesterday was that this is a stupid waste of my time, because the very fact of having put a lot of effort into trying to achieve a compromise solution leads some ill-mannered people to assume bad faith when that route is blocked without notability being demonstrated, so my days of mergeism are over. In future, if an article doesn't meet notability standards, I'll take it directly to AfD and save myself the abuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as per WP:BIO also poorly sourced. - Galloglass 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like another factoid, as well as a re-write of a website (such as an obituary or birthday). I'm starting to feel webpages are not worthy of having their own Wikipedia article. Neal (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Rosalia Women Turns 110". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Flossie Page says 110 years of life will make you wise, content . . . and tired. She should know. She celebrated her 110th birthday Thursday at her Rosalia home. "I don't want to live a long while longer," she said Friday. "I think I've lived my life." She said she is glad she has lived so many years, but she would not recommend it to others. "Not unless you can help other people who
^ "Flossie Page". Associated Press. February 25, 2006. Flossie page, the oldest Kansan on record, died Wednesday of pneumonia, according to granddaughter Becky Humig. She was 112 years, eight months and ...
^ "Oldest Kansan Dies at 112". Wichita Eagle. February 24, 2006. Flossie Page didn't drink liquor or soda pop. She didn't smoke or cuss. But she did drink strong coffee and wasn't above killing an occasional snake in her garden with a hoe. Mrs. Page died Wednesday morning from pneumonia at the Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital in El Dorado. She had lived 112 years, eight months and 10 days, making her the oldest Kansan on record, according to the Gerontology Research Group, which research es the lifestyles of ...
^ "Flossie Page". KAKE. May 9, 2004. Retrieved 2007-12-09. We don't often get a chance to meet history. But here she is. Flossie Page who next month will celebrate 111 years of life.

OK, let's look at these refs:
- The Wichita Eagle story is a 461-word article whose full text is not visible, so we can't meaningfully assess it. It may go some way to demonstrating notability, but it's hard to judge from the first para.
- You provide no links for the second and third refs, so they can't be assessed at all. Woukd you acre to reveal the source?
- The 480-word kake.com article was already referenced when I made the nomination.
- So all we have by way of verifiable refs is two articles of less than 500 words in local papers. I'd say notability not yet proven. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When the Wichita Eagle with a circulation of >90K runs a story on you, and the Associated Press writes a story on you, and a TV station carries a story on you, you are notable by Wikipedia standards. The number of words don't matter in notability. And, as always you can find the stories the same way I did, even without a link, by using Google. As you know Google links are not always permanent, but are sometimes cached. Sadly most of the newspaper information in the US is not archived online. Here in NJ the newspaper online archive is just for two weeks, and Google licenses the AP feed, but sadly I haven't seen much up yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The number of words do matter in notability: WP:BIO explicitly says that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word "trivial" doesn't imply a minimal number of words that need to be used. A trivial mention would be say, a telephone directory, or a list or people that attended a party. There is no minimum. There just needs to be sufficient information in all the combined sources, so that nothing in the article is "original research". And of course a telephone directory can be used for verifiability (that say they lived in Texas), just not for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Richard, do please read WP:BIO, particularly the note at WP:BIO#endnote_3. Non-triviality is not simply a binary question of not being a directory entry, it's a matter of how far removed from a directory entry the ref in question is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly what I wrote you, reread above. Why are you repeating it to me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not what you wrote. Do please read WP:BIO, particularly the note at WP:BIO#endnote_3 ... all of it. It's not that long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, per WP:BIO, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Your proposal of assembling snippets does not satisfy that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, thanks again, Richard Norton! Neal (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yup. Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitia (talk • contribs) 01:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The local press runs stories on dozens of non-notable persons every day, and the oldest/heaviest/tallest persons in Kansas/Ohio/Labrador are amongst these non-notable persons. Preserving the snippet in a list is an excellent compromise. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 09:05, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, some of the keep opinions are not based on policies or guidelines however there is genuine disagreement over whether the sources establish enough notability for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Baines[edit]

Notability not established per WP:BIO, so I merged it to List of American supercentenarians. Merger reverted twice, so I suggest deletion: this short snippet belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a short snippit, it is actually start class. I reverted you twice, BHG, because I though that being the oldest in California, one of the oldest in the world, and in the top 90 oldest people is qualified for notability and because I think it can stand against an AFD. If all else fails, at least about half the article is in the List. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please read WP:BIO, which does not list "oldest in California" as a criterion for notability, and this article does not cite substantive coverage in multiple reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, WP:BIO totaly forgot about the oldest people. There in no offical line where super-oldsters become notable. She is in the top 100, and is one of the oldest people now. And she's the oldest in California...''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It didn't forget. It's a bad criterion to use. That someone is the (documented) oldest person somewhere justifies their inclusion in a list in an article discussing oldest people. It doesn't justify that person having a biographical article. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. RMHED (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kitia. You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HALT -- this article and another were unmerged from an article that passed notability, and were tagged for AFD as revenge from an administrator (BHG) for not merging them back in the vein of beauracracy run amuck. Read more at [[16]]. Guroadrunner (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not so. The article did not establish notability, so I merged it as an alternative to deletion. I nominated it for deletion because when unmerged it still failed to establish notability. There is no revenge involved; if the article passes WP:BIO, it should stay, but otherwise it should be merged or deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Retraction. It appears that the articles are being duplicated with a fork from Kitia, hence why the AFD for these articles that were separated from the main list they belong in. Recommend merge. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a bad faith nomination in retaliation over the edit conflict in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please AGF. There was no edit conflict, just an objection to my attempt to merge a non-notable article rather than AfDing it. If mergers are simply reverted on sight, then the solution is to take it to AfD and let the community assess the article on its merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said before, if you thought the information was worth keeping in a merged list, then its worth keeping either here or back at the merged list. When the merge was reversed, you nominated the article for deletion, thats bad faith. Its a type of disruption, rather than working for consensus on who should be in the merged list and who should get a stand alone article. Consensus takes time, and negotiation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You appear not to have read the nomination, where I recommend merger, and you appear not to understand (or not be able to acknowledge) that the issue I was addressing was what to do with information which did not meet the criteria for a standalone article. Since there was no consensus for merger, and the article did not meet WP:BIO, the two viable options seemed to me to be deletion or merger, which is why I brought the article here precisely to seek consensus. I'm rather fed up with your repeated bad faith allegations of disruption, because it would have been perfectly reasonable of me to have simply taken the article straight to AfD rather than first trying to salvage a little bit of it through merger, an option which not everyone supports. In your enthusiasm for personal attacks on me, you repeatedly ignore the fact the merged lists were kept at AfD, and that Kitia has been instantly reverting any effort to merge non-notable articles into the lists based her notion that WP:BIO should be read as if it offered presumed notability for very old people, even though it offers no such presumption. The result of all this is that I will no longer waste time trying to merge anything from these non-notable stubs, because if you take an attempt at merger as evidence of bad faith, then I might as well spare myself from the abuse and go straight to AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently notable as per WP:BIO. - Galloglass 12:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because if the 4th oldest person is nominated for deletion, so should the 5th, 6th, and 7th. (As well as 8th, 9th, and 10th). Okay, good idea! Neal (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- That's not how WP:BIO works. The 597th-oldest person in the world would be notable if there was sufficient substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems to me I'm getting the message that WP:BIO is more about sourceability, citationbility, and referenceability, then about being notable. Neal (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

besides being notable, we need to be able to write an article. DGG (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) — I'll bust your beak! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are multiple articles about this person - CNN, CBS and LA Sentinel to name only three. Please explain why this would not amount to notability. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:52, 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 Speedily deleted; material was substantially the same as that of the properly AfD'ed article. Redirected to House of Carters and salted as suggested. — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie Jean Carter[edit]

Non-notable stub; relative of several famous people but not notable in her own right. Speedied once then recreated; deleted at AfD August 2006, recreated October 2006; PRODded 2007-12-01, but the {{prod}} tag was removed without comment. I suggest redirecting to House of Carters and salting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 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. Mr.Z-man 06:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Murphy[edit]

Prod on Nov 24th. Reason: "Not notable and no citations used." I have put in two sources which confirm the statements in the article. The person has won an award. However, the sources I found are borderline, and the award may also not be enough. I feel this may benefit from wider discussion. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not bother to specify the nature of the award(s) this person won. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:52, 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Would keep with better evidence. Documentary film maker whose film won a Best Foreign Film award at the 2006 Lake Arrowhead Film Festival.[17] A Google News archive search produces some non-free articles mentioning his win and its importance. Very little else found that comes independent of Murphy. Some apparent recognition but WP:V is the biggest obstacle. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like CV bluff. Not verifiable prob. not notable. Need to show notability. Victuallers (talk) 11:29, 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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Azimi[edit]

Musical artist without any apparent claim to notability. No significant tours, records released, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources or anything else that would satisfy WP:N. 274 GHits don't turn up anything useful. There may be WP:COI issues with the primary author of the article, Mairajaan (talk · contribs · email), who has repeatedly removed cleanup tags. Skomorokh ^incite 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. I can't find any online references that don't appear to have been written by the subject himself. --DAJF (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per DAJF. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nice, well-written article, but it looks like the subject fails WP:MUSIC -FrankTobia (talk) 06:59, 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 redirected to Pikmin (series) --JForget 02:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin (species)[edit]

This fictional species does not assert notability through the inclusion of real world information, and it reads like a game manual. It is covered in the main article (Pikmin (series)#Pikmin), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already in main article, do not need in-universe plot repetition with no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to have own article, a sufficient summary is already provided in the main game page - Dumelow (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the main article is quite sufficient and the fictional species has no notability outside the game's context. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - demonstrates no out-of-universe notability, and thus does not satisfy WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - information is better presented in prose per WP:L. User:Krator (t c) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough for its own article. Malinaccier (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sew Fast Sew Easy[edit]

Unable to find any significant external references. Only passing mentions. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Stitch 'n Bitch. They have a published book as well as significant press coverage, much of which seems to involve their claim to "Stitch 'n Bitch" as a trademark, which attracted international press attention. example article and another example article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating stuff, and while there's the suspicion of some Wikispam mixed in with it let's not delete the good stuff too. Deleted several times already without debate I notice. Agree a merge might be a possibility but that doesn't need to involve AfD, and the resulting redirect should stay. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree with Andrewa's observation concerning Wikispam and have great concerns regarding conflict of interest,I see that reliable sources meet notability guidelines. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Sew Fast Sew Easy article, it has received coverage both within the United States, Germany and on CNBC World Business News as a company. There is no reason this article should be merged with the stitch and bitch article. The company has products that are independant of stitch and bitch. Books, patterns, and an online store. All of the articles in question are verifiable. The url within the article goes to the sew fast sew easy website where a copy can be found on the press page, but the article date, newspaper or video coverage dates are provided. I do not see why these sources are considered not verifialbe. Can you please explain?--Ggarvin (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Per above. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has been a long-standing problem--there is apparently a trademark dispute underlying this, and most of those editing this and related articles have strong POV and probably COI.The safe thing to do is keep, and continue to try to edit neutrally. DGG (talk) 17:07, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last page of the Internet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Web 1.0 cruft. Stubby, no reliable sources, and doesn't even refer to a single website in particular. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ye olde web meme that never really took off. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are definitely some Web 1.0 memes which are notable (ate my balls, tourist guy, Hampster Dance) but this one almost certainly isn't.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First AfD for this had no quality discussion at all.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 17:46, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tart[edit]

Small satyrical newspaper; does not appear notable, has no sources besides the paper's own website. — Coren ^(talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC) — Coren ^(talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of sources is unsurprising since, according to the article, it only started in 2007, has published just 3 issues, and is local to one school. The article claims plans for it to become international (Good luck with that) but at present it's mind-numbingly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current readership is stated as only being 60,000 and is too low for the paper to be notable - Dumelow (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outworld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mortal Kombat game articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mortal Kombat (series) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant information. Gtstricky 15:34, 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed among the list of Mortal Kombat articles up for deletion. --15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMECRUFT. Wikipedia does not contain this kind of information. User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft, as above. Malinaccier (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Certainly there is a need for better sourcing, but notability is clearly established. The issue of COI, while a cause for watching the article for POV, has no affect on notability. Pastordavid (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hubbard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Conrad Hubbard

I just want to point out that the majority of the edits have been made by 24.98.24.17, which resolves to Atlanta, Georgia--the location of Conrad's employer, WWGS. Additionally, most edits by this person have been regarding Conrad Hubbard, White Wolf games, and the names "Conrad" and "Hubbard". I suspect very strongly that Conrad Hubbard himself is making these edits--and, if not, it is someone who has a close business or personal relationship with him. This is a conflict of interest. I also question Mr. Hubbard's notability for inclusion; as stated below, he is a web designer and writer for a small genre publisher. I am hereby nominating this page for deletion. Guy Ruffian (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Amazon lists 10 books which he wrote/co-wrote, so it's conceivable that he may be notable and independent coverage could be found. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as this smells like a bad faith nomination. The article was tagged for deletion by User:66.31.27.94 and posted here by a SPA. Nominator would do well to take note that (1) COI is not in itself a reason for deletion, and (2) it is customary and considerate to notify interested parties of AfD nominations. As the nominator clearly identified the IP primarily responsible for writing the article, I have notified that IP of this discussion. Maralia (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sourced better. there seem to be 35 books altogether, so he's probably a very notable game guide writer. It should be possible to find some reviews. Some people are careless about notifying principle authors, and I think a few actually dont consider IPs should necessarily be notified at all., so I would normally still AGF, but looking at the article talk page does raise some questions. What we need is a bot. DGG (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC) B[reply]
Weak delete. Google News Archives and Google Scholar have come up with nothing on him and the article contains no third party sources. However, if sources were found, I would support the retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included on the WikiProject Role-playing games to-do list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:42, 8 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the author of multiple books that are sold in many places. While I understand this article is poorly sourced and not the best article, the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. While the quality of the article is a possible argument for deletion, upon reading the talk page, I can see that there has been questionable edits done, which prevents an article from growing properly. Hopefully, under proper guidance, this article can grow to become much better. As for the conflict of interest, it becomes a touchy subject. If the author is the topic, the only moment his contribution can become a conflict is when the subject starts deleting information that is true and sourced. Otherwise, I doubt the addition of true information is a nuisance, since it becomes easier to reference. Youkai no unmei (talk) 21:22, 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 --JForget 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels of Bharatpur, Nepal[edit]

Hotel list for a given location. Excellent for Wikitravel, but is not an encyclopaedia article. Nehwyn (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a travel guide Dumelow (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else and WP:NOT. And besides that, it's not really an article, just a list. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As all above: WP:NOT. Malinaccier (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Katev[edit]

Unreferenced biography, fails WP:BIO. Nehwyn (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could almost be a speedy A7 or A1.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable given current info. As HisSpaceResearch says could probably have passed WP:SPEEDY under A1 (very short article without context) or A7 (article which does not indicate importance of subject). - Dumelow (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:28, 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 consensus that the article fails several policies. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Obvious[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has gone on long enough. This article makes a mockery of Wikipedia, and reads like the sort of nonsensical entry you'd find on websites like Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban Dictionary or even BJAODN when it existed on-wiki, which in my opinion would be a better place for this than the mainspace. First AfD ended in keep, but that was about a year ago, and people were a bit less knowledgable then about what makes an appropriate page and had not been transwikied at that point in time. The second AfD, last month, ended in no consensus, but many people suggested a delete over a keep, and the people in that AfD voting keep in my opinion made very poor arguments for inclusion.

Here's why this article should be deleted:

1. The Google hits for this term are irrelevant, and do not provide reliable sources. Captain Obvious gets less than half of the Google hits for "LOL WUT", and that page is salted. Gets about half of the Google hits for "an hero", and that page is salted too. Google hits are an extremely poor measure of the actual notability of 'internet memes' - internet memes usually violate WP:NFT. Anyone can make something up on 4chan that the community there might grab a hold of, but not everyone can publish it in a reliable source. Occasionally, that happens, like with O RLY and Chocolate Rain. But the overwhelming majority of internet memes are non-notable.

2. The sources given in the article are not reliable - Wookiepedia and Uncyclopedia are unreliable unless used as WP:SPS, which in this case they cannot be. I don't even think any reliable sources exist unless anyone can care to prove otherwise. A lot of this is original research, poor tone of writing.

3. Already transwikied to Wiktionary. It's a dicdef with original research right now, and "Captain Obvious" does not refer to one character in particular - it's a term, not a fictional character, and the article is misleading in that respect.

4. The argument that it's also the name of a non-notable radio show holds no weight. It has a few minor pop culture allusions (sometimes in obscure fandom circles and under variant names, which would not be about the actual subject of this article), but nothing notable enough for an article or reliably sourced.

5. Not really an argument for deletion, but the imageboard post and the list of phrases that may result in the speaker being called Captain Obvious are more Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia.

6. Nothing in the mainspace actually links to this apart from in "See also" sections, except the thing about the non-notable radio show.

So I leave it with you, and if you can suggest how an article that does not violate WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:N and WP:NOT#DICT can be written, then I might reconsider. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slang dicdef padded out with hopeless trivia (a list of Star Wars quotes, for example). As slang goes, it doesn't have anything remotely approaching the level of cultural importance or verifiability of other slang terms we have valid articles on: Fuck and cunt, for example, have each been the subject of entire books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia not wiktionary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is ridiculous. This article has been up for deletion twice before, the last time just a month ago. The decision both times was to keep. This character is obviously notable, This is a widespread well-known internet Character often used to express sarcasm. There are websites devoted to this character. Do a google on "captain obvious" and you will bring up hundreds of thousands of pages that mention him. Do a similar search on "Major Subtle" and see what you get. There is a Captain Obvious character on Reddit with a major following, there is a Radio show segment named Captain Obvious. This looks like a bad faith nomination designed to subvert the AfD process, the nominator seems to want to keep on nominating for AfD until the page is deleted. --lk (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you provide the article with multiple reliable sources I will change my mind about this nomination - I promise that. It's also problematic because Captain Obvious is not a single character as such, and the article might find itself addressing different topics at once, which would be a mess.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I am acting in good faith - this certainly isn't a bad faith nomination, because the way this stands I don't believe it's an appropriate page for Wikipedia. Assume the assumption of good faith. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi is an example of a bad faith nomination. Or since that was deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you ever seen "LOL WUT" used as the headline of a magazine article? Well, this article is titled "Captain Obvious to the Rescue": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/captain_obvious_to_the_rescue.html This is a serious political news site, not a fly by night blog with a dozen readers. Apparently they think that Captain Obvious is serious and well known enough that their serious mostly conservative readers will understand the context. --lk (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, they thought that their readers wouldn't have the first clue, which is why the first paragraph of that article explains what they were referring to. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How about this article then, titled "Thank You, Captain Obvious" on a financial website. the author didn't see any need to explain the title: http://www.safehaven.com/article-2944.htm --lk (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Repeatedly pointing to things that don't explain this subject won't counter arguments that it is unverifiable because no sources exist and thus to document it first in Wikipedia would be original research. Indeed, you'll only reinforce those arguments, by demonstrating that nothing you come up with is actually a source that can be used to build an article. Try finding articles that do explain it, instead. Then you'll have an argument that actually holds some water. Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All original research or "in popular culture." Do we really need an article to explain to people what "Captain Obvious" means? Does nobody else see the overwhelming irony?-Wafulz (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ironic in that sense, but that doesn't have anything to do with its encyclopedic validity. I once considered writing a Wikipedia essay entitled Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not funny, explaining why humour is inappropriate in any Wikipedia article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; every "reference" is simply use of the term, not discussion of its meaning— ergo an encyclopedia article here is original research. Case closed. — Coren ^(talk) 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a crock-pot of original research. What little there is that isn't original research is Wiktionary content, assuming all the sarcastic falsehoods are removed from the article. Chardish (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to approach this as a reader would. I found that the article provided me with no reliable means to check that anything it contained was accurate. The sources cited were either dealing with other subjects, that have their own articles, or were wikis. So I put my editor hat on and went to look for sources. There's nothing. There is no way to support any of the current content of this article, and there's no way to rewrite the article in a verifiable manner. No-one has ever properly documented who or what "Captain Obvious" is, or any of the things about him that this article purports to tell us. There's no reason to believe that any of what the article says is true, and there's no way to write an article that readers can check for themselves against secondary sources written by people with known reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Continual re-nomination is at the very least silly. If this is a good faith nomination, I have to question if this is a good *sense* nomination. All reasons for deletion are invalid, since though they would be good grounds for deletion, if true, are infact wildly inaccurate if not outright false on the facts of the matter. There is no such thing as "level of verifyability". A thing either is verifyable or not. And this thing clearly is. That is a fact. No "levels" about it. The usage in professional wrestling clearly demonstrates the meme has transcended the internet, and as such is way past notable. The google hits by themselves would mean little, but certainly lend support to the widespread nature of the meme, clarifying that the extra-internet references aren't just chance usage outside internet, but are connected. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if people cite enough reliable sources explaining exactly who or what Captain Obvious is, then I may reconsider. If so many people are agreeing that it should be deleted, than this can hardly be a bad faith nomination like the sort of ones I pointed out above.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To compare with 2 Girls 1 Cup, that is an article about an entity which is unambiguous. "Captain Obvious" however, is loosely defined. It's not even worth a disambiguation page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is already on Wiktionary where it belongs. Malinaccier (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is there are no good references.-Wafulz (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it's been about a year since the first AfD, and not a single good reference has been included. If there were any to be found, they would have been. — Coren ^(talk) 08:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two very good definitions of the term from reliable sources under editorial control. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure original research dressed up to look like a legitimate article. TTN (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Original research is still research. Just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. It serves it's purpose for what it is and for that, it is worthy of keep status. --~XHideoNinja (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... except that original research is very specifically forbidden. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem really like an article, perhaps broken beyond repair. Marlith ^T/C 05:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. This hardly seems encyclopaedic. Coldmachine^Talk 10:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe this has survived so many AfD's. The points made above should be more than enough. This is not what Wikipedia does. Let's get rid of this before someone sees it. Chromancer (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously not encyclopaedic, obviously WP:OR. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a saying, currently nn. Not every idiom and colloquialism is worthy of an entry.JJL (talk) 18:01, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomTom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The first discussion of this article was early-closed by User:Solumeiras as a speedy keep. Per WP:DPR#NAC, I am annulling the non-admin closure and reopening the discussion. I am neutral on the matter. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:CORP with coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the best-known supplier of in-car satnav in Europe. "TomTom" is used in the UK as a generic term for car satnav, much as "hoover" is used for vacuum cleaner. Absolutely no reason to delete. Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some cleanup but the WP:RS issues in the first AfD have been fixed. The POV problems were overstated. TomTom satisfies WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Repeating what I wrote in the first AfD:

while this article may lack adequate references, I recommend withdrawing this AfD:

The article states that TomTom trades on the Euronext exchange. Normally companies that trade on a major exchange are considered inherently notable.
A Google News searches >1800 press mentions in the last 30 days. Searching the Google News archives turns up 12,000 more press mentions
Article histories never establish notability but I note that this article's been edited over 170 times by several dozen different editors

On reading the deletion review discussion, I believe the nominator misunderstands the notion of community consensus in pushing to delete the article in spite of demonstrated notability. If one thinks large companies should not be included in Wikipedia, then that idea is best pursued first at either Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) -- not by using 2 AfDs and a DRV. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Undoubtedly meets WP:CORP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again. Sourced article that meets corp based on non-trivial reliable sources. spryde | talk 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the only person who apparently wants to delete this has the idea that a company must be "iconic" for us to have an article on it, which has no basis in policy. --W.marsh 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep How ya like it now, Stifle? Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is enough to WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company meets WP:CORP with flying colors. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whoever has the idea to delete this article on a key market player; and on what basis?!?Enquire (talk) 18:26, 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. Mr.Z-man 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis McCallum[edit]

Non-notable bio. - Philippe | Talk 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all of the claims of notability in the article are from primary sources (books the subject authored), and a Google search found very little coverage. Rray (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author made a good effort to cite sources, but probably didn't fully understand the vitality of third-party sources and notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's certainly notable as an author. "The Death of Truth" is a very important work on postmodernism, http://www.anchorsawayministries.org/content/Lesson2.5WVStudent.pdf see page 21. "Christianity: The Faith that makes Sense" is an important apologetics work. I cited 4 third party sources in the article. Run a google search on any of his book titles, and you'll see that there's a lot of coverage. I know the book is also cited in other apologetics works, but it's hard to find those with a google search. I think Xenos is also notable in the home church movement, and for being one of the only large churches in America that isn't 90% composed of transfers from other churches.GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ran a search on the author's name and found mostly websites trying to sell his books, which don't indicate notability. I then did a search for "the death of truth" + "dennis mccallum" and got several results, but most of them were sales pages from Amazon and other online bookstores. I see 21 footnotes on the page, but of those, 5 are citations from the author's own books, 9 are from xenos.org (which is the church where the author is the pastor), 2 of the links are from blogs, and 2 are from leaderu.com. I know the references to the author's own books don't establish notability, and I don't think the references to the author's church website demonstrate notability either. Blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources, and I'm unsure about leaderu.com. The Cornerstone article seems like the closest thing to a reliable source listed there, but it doesn't provide major coverage of the author; it provides coverage of one of his books (along with three others).I think saying that he's "certainly" notable might be a bit of an overstatement, since the reliable secondary sources to support that assertion don't seem to exist. I could be mistaken though. Rray (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found another book review for "Death of Truth", added it to the article under notability as an author. http://www.pfo.org/deth-tru.htm: "This look at the postmodern world view is a book no student of cults or times should pass up." that site also reviewed "Christianity: The Faith that Makes Sense": http://www.pfo.org/maksense.htm. The source is a paid publication, so it's not just some dude's blog. Here's another review of it: http://www.tektonics.org/books/mccalldeathrvw.html#Review. That one is from a pretty big Christian apologetics site. He's cited in a paper here: http://gospelforu.org/discoveries.html, in the bibliography. And another review of "The Death of Truth": http://www.apologetique.org/en/reviews/McCallum_Death_Truth.htm. That site only has a small english section. I know I've seen several of his books cited in other books, but obviously that won't show up in a google search. I'm gonna go through and see if I can find any references. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable living person. Possible vanity, COI or promotional issues. Would support the creation of Xenos Christian Fellowship (linked at Xenos (disambiguation)) article if RS could be found. Found one news story [18].--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN author with no reliable secondary sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:42, 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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google juice[edit]

Non-notable neologism lacking reliable sources (all I see are blogs), also is being used to promote a non-notable website (googlejuice.co.uk). h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 13:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete We already have an article about PageRank, I think, and if not, we have an article about Google. This just a slang term for PageRank anyway. Rray (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it actually meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, except possibly A7 on web content. If it's a slang term, then this could be deleted then a redirect created...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'd like to see a mass merge of all Google-related neologisms, frankly Chardish (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN neologism. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:40, 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 nothing to merge contract is already covered in the Cesc Fabregas article. Gnan garra 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseba Díaz[edit]

Delete. Unremarkable football agent. No indication why he is notable WWGB (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A remarkable football agent with several indications of why he is notable. A Google search uncovers many reliable sources in the first few pages. Why couldn't you spend your time checking this before going for speedy deletion, proposed deletion and AfD all within two hours of the article's creation? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Notable, but his notability does rather cluster around one contract in 2006. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Maybe I'm not up with football lingo, but he doesn't seem notable to me at all and is only notable for a single thing, which does not satisfy WP:N. I'd suggest merging the article into Cesc Fabregas, but if that's not practical I'd suggest deletion. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no merge at all: fails WP:N due to the lack of significant coverage related exclusively to him. --Angelo (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo.romano (talk • contribs) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable agent. I can find no coverage of him himself, only mentions as an aside in coverage of Fabregas. Nuttah (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability doesnt transfer Mbisanz (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Transfer deals and player contracts are the work of the agent, not of the player, so the sources quoted in this article are specifically about Díaz's achievements. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also a further discussion in February 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There are far too many issues here to be decided in the AFD format and timeframe. I understand that no decision has been reached in literally years of discussion, but except in rare cases, lack of consensus is not a reason to delete. Mr.Z-man 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres[edit]

Currently the page list of massacres is protected due to protracted edit wars. There have been meaningful discussions about how the introduction to the page could be altered so that only entries supported by reliable third party sources were used. But the problem is that the word massacre has no agreed definition that can be attached to a category of offences and it is used in a by third party sources in an arbitrary way. One incident may be described as a massacre in a third party source, while another very similar incident is not.

A requested move to "List of mass killings" failed less than a month ago because, AFAICT, the list would be very large and most thought it even more of a vague title and open to more WP:POV interpretations than the current name. This is also considered to be a problem with all the other names to date that have been suggested.

There are some sections of the article that can be salvaged and placed into new articles which are not contentious, two such articles already exist List of school-related attacks and Going postal, and the two sub-lists from this article that could be salvaged are "massacres during labour conflicts", and "Criminal and non-political massacres". Much of the rest of the article are either covered in other articles eg "State-sponsored genocides" are covered much better in the Genocide article, or are just an arbitrary collection of events which editors with various POVs have added to the article. For example the air forces of the belligerents in World War II launched scores and scores of strategic and tactical bomber raids every week of the war many of which which killed scores of people, yet the list of raids classified as massacres runs to four with no reason given as to why those four are selected as the only four raids that were massacres.

This leads to one final point. The list is as it is currently structured is far from complete, for example if all aerial bombardments from all wars that result deaths are included then it will many times larger and it is already has an edit size of 196K . Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: the page as it is now tries to include ever large scale killing and this will make the article unusable and unmaintainable, just because of the number of such events. The current structuring uses recent media jargon with the "state sponsored massacre". Most of the {{fact}} requests were applied mechanically - where the relevant article exists the references and details should not get duplicated over several places. Whole wars (e.g. Spanish Civil War) were inserted into the list.

If the contents is kept it should be broken into parts: first geographically by continent or subcontinent, then by date, without attaching further labels as war, state or religion. School shooting, workplace violence and gang wars should be separated into standalone lists. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why by continent? You say without attaching further labels to war, state or religion, but then immediately suggest that schools, workplace and gang wars should be labelled. Why those three and not others? Have you read the talk page? Because it is suggested that the current introduction should be replaced with a new one, and only massacres described as such will be included in the list in future if it survives this AFD --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By continent or by some well defined and established historical region - the smaller chance for potential disputes the better.

The reason why I think school shooting should not be included here - disregarding inflation of the term by current media, these are plain murders on somewhat larger scale. Remove the shooter and nothing will happen. A "proper massacre", IMHO, has some context and does not depend only on the behaviour of single individual. Get the crazed Olga Hepnarová better psychiatric treatment (or better parents) and eight people will live, switch the soldiers or organizers at Lidice and maybe some other village will be destroyed. My opinion. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried in vain to find reliable, academic or otherwise non-casual use of the term massacre. What constitutes a "proper massacre" versus something that is simply labeled one? Is Columbine Massacre a real massacre or just a proper one? It may be obvious to you but that is merely your own original research.--Mmx1 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by the proposer who provides a good summary of the problems with the article. I also think that "non-political" massacres such as the recent school shootings in Finland and Westroads Mall massacre can be compiled with a wide consensus. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: there are no rules against incomplete lists. This one is also useful. --Quoth nevermore (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Quoth nevermore" what is a massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mas·sa·cre /ˈmæsəkər/ noun, verb, -cred, -cring. –noun

1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.

2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.

3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.

–verb (used with object)

4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.

5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.--Quoth nevermore (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say that the word is "POV charged", in this case we cannot imply that a fact is a massacre without assuming a POV, and a "list of massacres" cannot exist in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now define a "large number". Is 10 a massacre, or would you reserve such a term for anything over 500? It's an extremely subjective and ill-defined term. --Czj (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So "Quoth nevermore" which dictionary did you use? How does one judge if the killings were unnecessary or necessary? Does this mean that mass discriminate killings are never a massacre? What happens if a reliable source calls an event a massacre, but the killings were not indiscriminate but targeted killings, such as the killing at the end of the siege of Drogheda or the Massacre of Lvov professors or the Banka Island massacre, do they get into the list or not? If the do then what is the definition we are using and if they do not then it is not a list of massacres as defined by reliable 3rd party sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First define Massacre (WP:OR). Second, how long into history will we go back. Third, even if we go back in history only 300 years, there are so many massacres that this list will never be completed, and won't be helpful. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as much as I hate to say it. This is an indiscriminate and unmanageable list. The information on its own is helpful, but not in a format like this. Splitting into smaller, much more focused and well-sourced articles (a lot of which already exist) is much more meaningful and less arbitrary. --Czj (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word indiscriminate does not apply here, as any review of WP:LIST will show. A list of blue-links is "indiscriminate" because there is no information provided that shows a distinction between the items on the list. This one, on the other hand, provides information about time and place, a summary, and the source of the information, and here at Wikipedia, we tend to like sourcing. Nor is it unmanageable, unless you're worried about new massacres being added every day. The only valid complaint I see here is that there's no clear definition of what's a massacre. Good well-sourced material that could stand better organization. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are literally thousands of mass killings that would qualify as "massacres"; this list will expand exponentially. As someone said, every bomb dropped in the past 90 years is potentially a massacre. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Perhaps this article may be recreated as sub articles (like "massacres of the Holocaust") etc. Please also note the following precedent:List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada was split into smaller and more specific List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada.Bless sins (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could never be inclusive enough JPotter (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I think the article is way too long for an article, so splitting it up sounds like a very good idea. Each section should be a page of its own, but the main page should remain, with links to each of the subpages. All of the concerns voiced by editors who voted to delete are well-founded, but deletion isn't the right way to deal with this. There is a lot of hard work behind each one of those tables. It should not be thrown away because of what amounts to no more than formatting errors. Cbdorsett (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history, and the talk archives, shows that I spent a lot of effort on this list over the years -- including the proposing and implementing the splits into separate tables from one long one -- but I don't consider that a justification for keeping the article. If we do not use the suggested definition of a massacre is a massacre when a reliable third party source calls it a massacre, (with all the arbitrary inclusions and exclusions that entails), then AFAICT any other definition is either original research and/or a non neutral point of view. So what you think is a massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware of any other Wikipedia pages that have been deleted because a group of editors could not reach consensus on a definition? All the pages I see that have controversies make some effort at defining, with mention of alternative points of view. I can't claim to have read all 1-million-plus articles, but I have worked on pages that generate a lot of controversy, such as Arabic language. This list is useful because it provides links to further information. Surely someone can craft a disclaimer that will head off edit wars. (Maybe you? Maybe me?) What I see in the proposals to split the page is an attempt to bring structure and order to the topic. Flat-out deletion is counterproductive, sort of an "I'm taking my ball and going home" solution. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With a definition that makes everyone happy, you will include every killing of two or more for the entire history of the human race. Any definition that limits the list to a manageable size will be challenged by someone w POV for eliminating their favorite act of cruelty. If you post by continent, it will be painfully obvious the list is POV biased. If you post by year, the concealment of the bias will be only partial and give legitemate cause for complaint.67.161.166.20 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Will you delete every article that is "controversial"? Or are some killings less important/tragic than others? Or does it not conform to the widely accepted list victims or perpetrators? This is a place where (somewhat) accurate history of human suffering is documented without the usual bias that accompanies this subject. Some events listed here document the killings which, in numbers at least, rival the holocaust, but they are not as widely mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.248.117 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No list can ever be completely exhaustive and this is a useful resource. --djkinsella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.186.75.73 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many lists on Wikipedia have fixed upper limit. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This list deserves to be on Wikipedia. It directs you to the articles making it alot easier. This was the main source in my politics essay in college and this is how i go my sources. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would a collection of smaller separated lists be still useful for your work? Some pragmatic solution is needed, the page cannot grow w/o limits. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmanageably indistinct criteria of "massacre"--Mmx1 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep & Split Article Well nobody can agree upon a massacre I would have to say that what ever has been labeled a Mass Killing/Spree/Murder be put in its own category and those we know to be called a Massacre be left. Example something like the Tulle Murders doesn't really count as a massacre as it was never really called a Massacre like the Malmedy Massacre. I would also like to suggest that all red links be removed if you are so concerned about controlling the article.
Delete - Absolutely unmanageable. There's no absolute authority on what the inclusion criteria for "massacre" is and the lines blur between mass killings, massacres and other terms which makes it totally unpractical. Each individual editor may have a different idea of what massacre means to them and in the end we'll have a gigantic list full of every killing involving more than 3 people. Delete. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term massacre is too subjective to keep this list manageable. Split material into smaller lists with more defined criteria for inclusion. AlphaEta 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split - Split into lists with tight crieria for inclusion. Looks and feels v.POV as it stands Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those of us who haven't been reading all of the original arguments going back to 2002, I repeat the following observation to expand on "Kenel Saunters" comment on POV:

Using ONLY post WWII data FROM THIS PAGE (selected because no one can claim writing hadn't been invented yet), we have raw data as follows: "the west" (Wikipedia definition - Europe, Russia, and US), with 15% of the world's population, 109 massacres w 20,000 victims. "the rest of the world", with 85% of the world's population, 123 massacres 15,000,000 victims. This works out to about 200 victims for each western massacre, and 120,000 for each "rest of the world" massacre.67.161.166.20 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Ignoring the POV questions, this list is too large to use. Split it into centuries, with decades for the 20th and 21st centuries being a possibility. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can not ignore the POV questions that is the fundamental problem! What do you think a massacre is? ie how would you describe it in the introduction so that the lists are not a random collection of events? -- What about the point I made in the introduction to this AFD about air raids? Did you know that in Northern Ireland between 1970 and 1992 there were about 10,000 "terrorist" incidents. Now not all those involved multiple loss of life, but that was a very small conflict in a very small place so can you imagen how many mass killings occur in a typical year? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - and it wasn't just "terrorists" did a bit of massacring - so not only a very very long list for tiny NI alone; but endless triggers for massive edit wars. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't mean ignoring the POV questions as to discard them- only that I was not going to address them. If this article is kept, it needs to be split into managable sections. There also needs to be an objective standard for inclusion, maybe by number of deaths. Something that can be divorced from politics or nationalism. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bradjamesbrown the advice to split a large list into smaller sections is quite reasonable, but that is not really the issue under discussion, because I would not not put a list up for deletion if size was the only problem (I would simply agree on the talk page to split it). I put the list up for deletion because of the inherent POV problems with the word massacre. This is well documented in the edit history of the article and on the talk page and archives. If after you have considered the POV problem, then please either consider changing your opinion from splitting the article to deleting it, or tell us how to solve the POV problem, or explain that you do not consider POV to be a problem, because at the moment it seems to me that you recognise the POV problem but have not suggested a way we can solve it.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is widely used and does have criteria. If we remove articles because of POV problems, we will have no articles on any controversial subject. DGG (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No - massacre isn't just controversial; it is controversial because it is so poorly defined - and we can't just invent a definition for the purpose of this article; WP:OR, synthesis etc. Any definition of "massacre" which will acheive consensus here will lead to a list of near infinite length. To illustrate this - you state what you believe are the "criteria" - and I'll show you what fits your criteria! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep moving this list to other articles like going postal and stuff is going to make it more POV and harder to navigate. I think a split into multiple articles would be acceptable by all means, and I think the best approach would be to section off 19th century and later. I find the more historical entries to be quite education and well in line with the purpose of Wikipedia and qualms about the inclusion of certain events shouldn't have any bearing on a delete/keep decision. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theanphibian please read Sara's point to DGG and then explain what you think a massacre is and what the criteria should be used for including an incident in the list. If you can not do this do you think keeping this list is a workable solution? As to your point about 18th century and earlier, the intention if this fails to only to include in the list those events which are called a massacre by a reliable third party source, so this list that exists will be a list of events that third party sources have called massacres. This will mean that many of the current entries will be deleted because they are only in there through editorial original research and WP:SYN and not through verifiable third party sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that we're going to delete all the old entries in the list because they don't have references, that's just BS. Most of them have links to a main article, you can't possibly argue that the Battle of Changping is controversial in terms of being defined as a massacre or not, or that we don't have a death count reported in good faith. Or would you be claiming that the [[ Virginia Tech massacre]] wasn't a massacre because we don't have a cite? I mean come on. Clean up is one thing, AfD is another. Obvious criteria for inclusion is that some other source called it a massacre, or that just a large number of people were killed not fighting back. So yes, I do think keeping the list is a workable solution and splitting into multiple articles could help. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the AfD is because no one has come up with a viable third party definition for massacre that can be used to create a list. Further those events that have reliable third party sources claiming that an individual event is a massacre, seem to be arbitrary and often politically/religiously/culturally biased. If the Battle of Chanping has no reliable third party source that states it was a massacre it should not be in the list of massacres, this is within Wikipedia policies of WP:PROVEIT and no original research. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the savage and excessive killing of many people^[1]. It may not be clear what fits into this definition sometimes, but no matter how you look at it, Battle of Chanping, for instance, falls into this definition. If you are uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't have sources in its article, that discussion should go in the article - we should be deleting that article, not this list. Furthermore, for the stuff that happened hundreds of years ago they're not contested events. This junk is in the history books, it should be trivial to verify or deny it. Like I was saying, modern events are more difficult to handle. Still not impossible. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does savage mean and who judges if it is excessive? The use of links to Wikipedia articles is not acceptable for any information that is challenged or likely to be challenged WP:PROVEIT says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused by what is accomplished by refuting the definition of massacre. There's not much in dispute about any entry, and that's the only thing that matters for PROVEIT. What the article is saying is "x number where killed in this event, y were killed in this event..." That's verifiable and within Wikipedia policy. Under what policy are you suggesting the article be deleted under? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Loughgall Ambush is not normally seen as a massacre, but the Saint Valentine's Day massacre is. Should incidents that have no third party source claiming an event like the Loughgall Ambush be included? "Under what polic...'" Take you pick WP:NOR#Sources "nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context." WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, WP:V#Burden of evidence "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example there were disputes about the suggested addition of Hiroshima bombing and people unhappy about labelling the event as "massacre" said that the term was "POV charged".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can look at the history for those bombings articles, people called it terrorism as well. I don't see what the big deal is, they'll call it whatever they can. Just say we're not including bombings in the article and leave it at that. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have been that way of excluding events within the laws of war at the time, but some editors argue that this is a biased POV (because no source that specifies this), and if an event is called a massacre in a reliable source, then whether it is within the laws of war or not it should be included. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot resolve POV issues about possible entries just by deciding each time to remove the category of event from the list.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the argument for inclusion of the atomic bomb here seems only slightly stronger than Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 13#Usage of the word terrorism to describe these attacks, which I thought was very weak, and I think consensus was built on it. It might sound silly, but can't we just ask for a vote/consensus for every disputed one? -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a strong enough interest in the article (as an example, this reference desk question), so for educational purposes it should be kept. If people want to know about it it should be dealt with. If the definition is problematic then that is no reason to not deal with the subject. For comparison, terrorism is even harder to define, yet we have the artcles List of terrorist incidents and List of terrorist organisations. If this article goes, then those should too. A solution might be to order the list not chronologically, but by the number of casualties. Then there might be one main article with the biggest massacres (which people will be most interested in) and then maybe even several more aricles for the different 'size' massacres. 84.41.231.64 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the number of people responding here is an indication of how popular the page is. 84.41.231.64 (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84.41.231.64 justifying the keeping of a list because there are others that you consider "even harder to define" is not in my opinion a very useful argument. If this list is to be kept then a definition is needed. So 84.41.231.64 if we are to keep this list please provide a definition that we can use for defining the word massacre and what do you think should the criteria be for including an incident in the list? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A single, continuous event in which large numbers of people were deliberately killed. Note that this includes sieges and battles, but not wars. Of course, that's just my definition and another might just as well be chosen (preferably with as little as possible OR). Admittedly, there are difficulties with any definition, but that goes for any definiton of any word (outside mathematics). If problems are a reason not to do something, then you end up never doing anything at all. 84.41.231.64 (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a large number of people? Is not such a definition OR or do you have a source for it? Such a definition would create a list of many hundreds of thousands of entries. What happens if a reliable third party source claims that an event is a massacre, do you keep it out of the list because it does not fit the definition? There are not the same problems with definitions for things like "war crimes" and "genocide" as these are legally defined terms as are many other terms used to create lists. But the meaning of a word like massacre is so loose as to be almost meaningless and is used in an arbitrary way in third party sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be a problem with renaming it, making a list of serial massacres as per the Ireland example above, or imposing criteria for inclusion. But as far as I can see, Wikipedia has no other equivalent list. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ WordNet Search - 3.0

COMMENT With all due respect, we seem to have a lot of people making arguments who were NOT part of the years long arguments on the original page. I am sorry, but I do not believe one single suggestion or argument has been made by any of these "non involved" persons that has not already been made and discussed repeatedly in the previous years.

FWIW Please do not be offended if your "perfectly reasonable solutions anyone can see" are not too well received by the "regulars". The matter is not nearly as simple as it appears.67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments from non-involved editors are vital for these discussions. Various policies strongly caution editors to read and understand the history of an article before changing a great deal of things, but there are also policies that discourage "ownership" of articles. Proposing solutions may be going to far in this discussion, but adding an opinion is still welcome. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Someone has pasted the content into http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=177731634 - normally that wouldn't be worth mentioning, but based on the name and edit summary it appears they may intend to use the Sandbox's history as "hosting space" for the article, and 'preserving' it in this way violates the GFDL. so... oversight, maybe? —Random832 21:15, 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. I'll take care of straightening out the redirects mentioned in this discussion. Pigman☿ 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kaulitz[edit]

Doesn't state notability. Harland1 ^t/_c 11:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge I believe this pages was orginally redirected but has since been reverted against the consensus. Most of the page was previously deleted as fancruft. --Neon white (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable. Soxthecat (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure if the band's notability passes onto the members, but this is about a living person and has no sources whatsoever. If sources can be found, I'd suggest merging any useful content into the band's main article. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it should be deleted. I come here to look up new stuff going on with Bill. The band is famous enough to have their own member pages! Leave it!19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Anathema_idol

The band may have notability for it's own article but that doesn't gaurantee individual members their own article. Every serticle has to prove notability seperately.--Neon white (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-redirect to Tokio Hotel. The band's notability is undeniable, but there's no evidence Bill (or Tom, Georg, or Gustav, for that matter) has any notability apart from the band. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both this article and Tom Kaulitz were redirected to a combined article titled Bill and Tom Kaulitz. After it was decided that this article should be merged with Tokio Hotel. I redirected both this and Tom Kaulitz to avoid a double redirect. The redircet was removed by an anon ip who added unsourced info, it should have been reverted but no-one caught it. Idealy the article should reverted to how it was seen as it has no more notability than then. --Neon white (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talk:Bill Kaulitz redirects to Talk:Bill and Tom Kaulitz, Bill and Tom Kaulitz redirects to Tokio Hotel - to me, this seems to be misleading and the talk pages should also be taken care of in the course of this deletion debate. BNutzer (talk) 08:42, 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. It's highly unusual for me to find BLP concerns overwhelming (WP has many other admins on the prowl for that sort of thing), but I do think they are predominate here. This list is lightly sourced, intermixes individuals of very different viewpoints without proper differentiation, and just doesn't seem to have an overarching raison d'etre. I think Cardinal Sin would be amazed to find himself on a list with Mrs. Schlafly (and vice versa.) Once one removes the problematic additions to this list, there is nothing left. An article might well be able to exist on this topic, but it should best begin afresh, with rigorous sourcing, and a more firm focus. Xoloz (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic activists[edit]

Arguably an indiscriminate collection of people (WP:NOT), most are unsourced (WP:V) and many are living people (WP:BLP). Labelling someone as an "activist" can be POV (WP:POV). I'm not sure why it has an admitted US bias, and the list is redundant given Category:Roman Catholic activists. violet/riga (t) 11:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not an indiscriminate collection, and categories do not make lists redundant (see WP:CLS; WP:V remains something of a problem. Please explain how "activist" is POV - I'm very curious. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people would not wish to be called an "activist" and would not class themselves as such. What do you have to have done to be called an activist? violet/riga (t) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate collection of people; unsourced and POV. It's also redundant because it's focus is predominantly on US based "activists". Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Categories and lists are not redundant but complementary. The problems described above of "unsourced" are precisely why a list is sometimes appropriate when a category is not. I note that "Catholic activists" is unfortunately vague both as a category and a list: Are they activists for Catholicism, or are they simply activists who are Catholic? --Lquilter (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to what I think is the meaning, Catholic social activists. DGG (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. The list is not just anybody who happens to call themselves Catholic, but people notable to Catholicism itself. A rename may be in order. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work to narrow topic focus, but that can be done in editing. Mbisanz (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete indiscriminate collection of information. 1 != 2 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Presbyterians[edit]

An indiscriminate collection of people (WP:NOT), all are unsourced (WP:V) and some are living people (WP:BLP). "Notable" is inherently POV (WP:POV) and the list is redundant given Category:American Presbyterians. See also: List of Australian Presbyterians. violet/riga (t) 11:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list can never be properly completed and there is no need for it--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have categories for tagging articles of notable people who happen to be Presbyterian. As with most lists on Wikipedia, this article is completely unnecessary when adding to a category performs the same function. =Axlq (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I think WP:N is a sufficient standard for inclusion if such a list were to persist. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who's up for linking to the other million American Presbyterians? Not me; delete as it's an indiscriminate collection of people. Per nom. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I've removed the spam language; otherwise, seems to be a clearly notable region. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Travancore[edit]

Article created by the same guy that was behind Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rivaji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riva Tholoor Philip, for the cause of pushing his own, non-notable, agenda of demand for a CT state. Now, central Travancore does of course exist in the most rudimentary sense, like does the central parts of any region. If someone has info which clarifies that there is any value in a separate CT article (any info beyond what is already written in the Kerala article) and which clarifies that the boundaries are not an arbitrary proposal, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. Soman (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if rewritten - Searching shows that it is notable. However, the entire article is a POV piece for the companies and people mentioned crafted into an article on a real area. This article merits to stay, but only if all traces of POV, COI and PROMO are removed. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:18, 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. east.718 at 23:12, December 14, 2007

White Hawk (ecovillage)[edit]

Contedted prod. An article on a non notable self build development. No references and no obvious sources available. Nuttah (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN development which isn't even completed yet. Even if it were, the article would only read like an advert anyway... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:12, 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. east.718 at 23:12, December 14, 2007

Jolly Roger's Cookbook[edit]

Advertisement for minor internet collection of 'textfiles'. John Nevard (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely NN & Promo'ish. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:07, 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. I appreciate the final argument made, but it still does not demonstrate notability or verifiability. Should the subject reach a point where it can do so, we can bring this article back. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MechQuest[edit]

In addition to failing all standards for notability, this article is completely loaded with game guide content. Chardish (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, although I believe that the game hasn't even been released yet and is still in the final stages of testing, so WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Techically, it's out. Like most online games (all AE ones included) it updates often, so I can understand why you feel that way. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of notability. The game did not gather enough attention on reliable sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, Game Rankings or Ign. Gamespot does have a page on the game. However, the only available data are its tech info and a player review. There are no full review from the Gamespot staff nor news coverage.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The artivle does not give guidence, but info. And the game is out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.204.130 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable developer/producer, will have enough secondary media coverage once it's out. We can have a stub sized article like we do with every highly anticipated game. I rewrote the article to comply with WP:GAMECRUFT - the above editors are encouraged to review their opinions. User:Krator (t c) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Will have enough secondary media coverage" - that seems to fly in the face of WP:CRYSTAL. Games that are actually highly anticipated have secondary media coverage now: see Spore, StarCraft II, Street Fighter IV, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, etc. - Chardish (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Note that this is a web-based game aimed at the more "casual" market and thus should probably be held to a different standard than games developed more conventionally within the industry, as the industry press under reports this market even when the user base or general interest in a game is high. A casual game shouldn't be expected to reach Bejeweled levels of press coverage to qualify for an article. Note also that Bejeweled has perhaps been played by more people than any other game this decade, yet even then the press coverage is sparse. Orphic (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL is about the contents of articles. We are certainly allowed to speculate in the Wikipedia namespace. That said, I agree that real anticipation is usually accompanied by media coverage... especially if there have been betas. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable, but it is desperate need for a rewrite. Once it's rewritten, it should be fine. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario Sonic BOOM! 13:42, 10 December 2*Keep. This game has actual paying subscribers, and has already gone through many new releases. This game is also listed on many online game and cheat sites including Newgrounds and Gamerzplanet. Mario Sonic[10:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

007 (UTC)

Keep.i want it to be kept.i play the game personally.i really want a article here about it.plz,for the sweet ghost of dookie keep it here.71.190.28.251 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy It's a notable developer but secondary sources should come first. I've had a look for some and come up with none. Userfying for the creator and others to work on means it can dropped back in place when it's found its notability legs, hopefully larger and better to boot. Default to keep if anyone can come up some sources. Someone another (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game is a pretty big game from a company that is growing. I think it's notable enough to keep. But it needs to be locked down in some way to prevent it's rabid fanbase from turning it into a game guide. It should be dedicated to "Real Life" info about the game only (ex date of development, people involved company history, popularity, etc. Oorang (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in the days of last year, we usually did that through the process of maintenance. I got the anti-creep barnstar on my user page that way. It's surprisingly seldom mentioned in AfDs nowadays, but there should be no reason why keeping half an eye on the article wouldn't keep it on track unless we get, like, a dozen fans a week. Work in progress, mind - it's not required nor possible to hold strictly to an optimal version at all times. --Kizor (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still haven't seen any Keep votes that amount to more than WP:ILIKEIT. If it's really notable, there will be significant coverage on it in reliable secondary sources. If such coverage does not exist, then it's not notable. The burden is on those who wish to keep to find those sources (though I've tried, too.) - Chardish (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How about this - the persistence and popularity (in terms of contributions from many editors) of this entry and many, many others like it, in the face of rigorous examination from AfDs and the cruft crusade, demonstrates an evolving consensus as to what constitutes an acceptable standard of entry for Wikipedia. I'm not attempting to WP:WAX anything in here, rather I'm pointing to how precedent from previous AfDs and existing editor practice suggests a more permissive standard of notability than is currently codified in written policy. As to written policy, I refer to WP:Policy itself, which quite reasonably explains that policy is primarily the result of "codification of current convention and common practice that already have wide consensus... The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first" (emphasis mine). In other words, policy (such as WP:N) follows practice, not the other way around. And the consensus common practice seems to be that entries which ambiguously meet WP:N yet can be constrained to verifiable information are acceptable. The article will meet this standard once it's cleaned up. Orphic (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton's second studio album[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a crystalball. Perhaps this would be notable if we knew the title, or the release date. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Crystal Balling. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not crystal ball, the article has reliable sources and Paris Hilton herself confirmed she's working on a new album. [19][20] — Jhn* 11:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if celebrity gossip sites are reliable enough. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris said she's recording a new album, not the site, see the video. — Jhn* 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact she is recording an album should definitely be noted on the Paris Hilton page, but we don't need a separate article for something that doesn't even exist. Manning (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stubby untitled unreleased album article Will ^(talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should we create pages for Rocky 15 and 16 (which will be made, undoubtedly ;D)? Well, without the jokes, we don't need articles on future albums that don't even have the name of the album released, or the release date. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What!? I thought they just released Rocky 15 on DVD?! ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballery. I always assume that the absolute minimum standards for an album in production is that it has a name, even if it's only a working title. A1octopus (talk) 12:12, 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. Those supporting deletion have their argument firmly planted in a guideline; those supporting retention offer only arguments from outside recognized policy and guidelines. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen Winter 2008 Tour[edit]

This tour hasn't happened yet, and although I am not crying "crystalballery", I contend that concert tours in general are not encyclopedic topics, unless they are like Marylin Manson's Dead to the World tour where religious kooks protested endlessly, and a date had to be cancelled in South Carolina. (Of course, that article doesn't mention it, I had to look it up on Marilyn Manson). Anyway, Wikipedia is not the place for Van Halen's upcoming tour information to be posted. I'm sure there are policies that could be cited against this sort of listing, and if there are not, there should be. Also, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, non-notable, unsourced, the usual. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Crystal balling & Directory. I wouldn't use Dead to the World tour as an example though since it's been prodded too. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Madonna's Confessions Tour is another example of a tour that deserves an article. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many examples of tours that deserve and have articles — The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, Bob Dylan's Rolling Thunder Revue, U2's Zoo TV Tour, Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour, the Dixie Chicks' Accidents & Accusations Tour, David Bowie's A Reality Tour, and so on. As for policy, why should every album and every single by a musical artist have its own article, and not tours? Many artists have established their reputation or livelihood more on touring than on record sales; indeed, in recent years Springsteen and the Rolling Stones make far more on their new tours than they do on their new records. Why shouldn't this be captured here? Do you object to Phish tours, and if so, do you think articles about albums really accurately portray the appeal of that band? Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't object in the least to notable tours like the ones you have mentioned. My concern is the proliferation of tour pages where fans (or possibly even bands) use Wikipedia as a listing service (WP:NOT#WEBSPACE). Most of the tour pages are just a list of dates and venues, with no explanation of why the tour is notable, or is/was important to the history of rock. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Spawn Man's comments Manning (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't have articles on all band tours anyway... only a few of the most notable ones, and this isn't one of them - I know that even though this hasn't happened yet.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Van Halen Fall 2007 Tour. This is just another leg of that tour, as will be Van Halen World Tour 2008 if it happens. I don't know why the editor who created these made them separate; it's all the one long Van Halen reunion tour with David Lee Roth finally back but with Eddie Van Halen's son replacing Michael Anthony. This entire merged article should be kept; it is notable and deserving of an article, because the reunion with Roth has been two decade in the making, with several failed attempts before. The joined article needs to be improved, however, with a better level of citing and sourcing, incorporation of newspaper reviews, a better description of what the set lists have been, commentary of Roth's voice, Eddie Van Halen's playing compared to his last pre-rehab tour, whether his son is up to the task, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking of the VH World Tour 2008, that needs deleting. This tour is a separate one, since it cannot be part of a "Fall 2007" tour so I really think it has to be kept.

It's not crystal balling, tour dates have been confirmed. They are legally contracted to play this tour. The last KISS, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, Iron Maiden, and Metallica tours all had pages up well before they began.

Van Halen's first work with David Lee Roth since 1984 is very important, and this is the second part of their reunion tour-work.

Van Halen have said there are more tourdates in 2008, but not said it is a continuation of the same tour. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

These are not really separate, common sense should prevail here. These are different legs of the same grand Roth-is-back tour. Call the combined article Van Halen 2007-2008 Roth Reunion Tour, or something along those lines. The fewer tour articles you have, the more substance each one will have and the less likely they will to get deleted. Trust me on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. If I had seen two outside sources on the page I would have left it alone. Consolidated articles have more sourcing possibilities.AnteaterZot (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tour dates "being set" isn't good enough to counter WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; the White Stripes cancelled their most recent tour because Meg had health problems. In fact, tours do get cancelled, and individual gigs are changed or cancelled with surprising regularity. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree they are different legs of a grand Roth-is-back tour as you so eloquently put it. But officially the 2007 dates were part of the Van Halen Fall 2007 Tour. So Van Halen's management are calling it a different event. A tour can get cancelled, but there's got to be good reason - it is unlikely. I wouldn't call crystal-balling an issue here; we state a tour is schedule to happen, nothing more. And it's true.

I think what's best is to keep them apart for now, to avoid the effort deciding how to handle the fact that a 2007 tour lasts 4 months into 2007, and consider it again once the second dates begin. Since I imagine the band will either say "The reunion tour continues with 2008 dates starting now" OR "The Van Halen 2008 Tour begins"...something along those lines. An official statement is a matter of weeks away and can decide this itself. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Elfoid, you're getting confused over the branding that artists' management do for different portions of a tour, and the common sense that we use in writing articles about a tour. U2 called their 1992-1993 tour Zoo TV, Zoo TV Outside Broadcast, Zooropa, and Zoomerang, but we cover all of them under Zoo TV Tour. The Rolling Stones rebranded the Steel Wheels Tour as the Urban Jungle Tour halfway through, but we combine coverage as Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour. And so on. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, perhaps. I'll admit while I don't think a merge is necessary and we should keep it apart, I am not overly bothered by it. The tours you mentioned were rebranding tours for different legs of a promotion. These tours are not really promoting anything, just Dave-is-back. It feels wrong, somehow. Fine, go ahead, merge it. I don't know...I think more than the merge, I'm against this being called the "Van Halen Tour 2007/2008" since it's split up. "Van Halen Fall 2007/Winter 2008 Tour" is probably too clunky for anyone else but me to be able to stand though.

So then, lets do it, I guess. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One further note; on the Concert Tours page, lets list this in the same fashion the 1984/OU812 tours have been for consistency. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:29, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Ceylon[edit]

Article is still unverified after over a year. 0 returns found in AVN,Xbiz, Gnews or PVD. Only refs for article are her website and kink.com profile. Notability is asserted due to prominence in fetish and porn videos, but doesn't seem provable. Has COI issues also, name of editor who created article is also listed in article as the subject's husband. There have been enough other editors and changes since that editors last edit that I don't think it should be speedied as such, so nominating her. Delete as Nom Horrorshowj (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No objective notability asserted. No 3rd party sources cited in article and none found by search for evidence of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree totaly with nom. NN, Promo, COI, V. I'd also suggest you took a look at her husband's article Cyd Black in case that warrants deletion as well. It looks like they've been set up as promotional pages. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 09:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strongly disagree. Several references by disinterested third parties exist, and are comparable to the references given for all the models on the List_of_bondage_models_by_decade. Given that this Delete suggestion is new, request that discussion be tabled for a short while references are added and then re-reviewed. Similarly, the same litmus test applies to the Cyd Black article. If this article is not legitimate, then none of the articles linked from the Bondage_rigger list are legitimate either. References from prominent disinterested third parties are available from the outlets mentioned such as AVN, Xbiz and otherwise. Since said article was only recently added, the article is a work in progress. Citations and references will be researched and referenced within three days time. The notion that the article on Sarah Jane Ceylon and/or Cyd Black where set up as promotional pages is cynical, misinformed and factually incorrect. Disclosure: While I clearly appear to have a conflict of interest in this matter, I believe that I am able to offer an objective and logical view by providing the required references. References will be added within 3 days time. Request further discussion be tabled until references are added.

The above unsigned comment was added by Cydblack.
comment. Better yet, please point out a published article or two which other editors can add to the Sarah Jane Ceylon article. The Cyd Black article is for another discussion. But please note that Cydblack writing articles related to Cyd Black is a conflict of interest and sets off alarms. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- AfD discussions generally run 5 days, so if you can find usable refs in 3 days things should be fine. It's better to not them on the talk page rather than making the edits yourself, as previously noted. I looked on every website/search engine I mentioned, so I'm going to be surprised if you find something there. All I found were mentions that she was in scenes on various new releases which isn't enough. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (opinion from above changed) After further thought, article creation by a related person would continually be a point of contention. Cydblack

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

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

The result was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xen: Ancient English Edition[edit]

This article has been prodded so many times it's having trouble standing up. It's been deprodded in both good and bad faith, but none have really contested the deletion. Regardless, it's just easier to sort this out here. Procedural nom, no opinion (yet) UsaSatsui (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google searches didn't turn up anything useful, other than the book being on google.books, but I'm not sure that warrants inclusion. Otherwise, the book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) and reads like an advertisement. It has no sources and it doesn't seem like a note-worthy masterpiece. So delete from me. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not technically "self-published", the publisher is so small and obscure (2 authors, according to its website) that it might as well be. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advertisement. Dchall1 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday DC[edit]

OK, this is so embarrassing. Some total newb wrote this in 2005 (*blushes*), not meaning any harm, but looking at it now, I'm not sure what to do with the article. The group is very marginally notable, probably been covered in two or three dozen reliable print and TV news pieces total, but we only made news when we did something like take over a building, so I doubt all the info in the article is verifiable by an independent source, e.g. the info about the weekly meal. I'm pretty sure the group's defunct now, though again, you probably won't find a source to verify it. All this, plus the big fat COI. I think if you removed the OR a good article possibly could be written about the group, but it's no good in its current state. So I'd lean toward delete, but I leave it up to you all to decide. delldot talk 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Woah, what a total newb the guy who wrote this musta been! ;) User requests deletion - WP:CSD#GC7. No significant edits have been other than yours, so it can be easily speedied. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that, but I wasn't sure it even should be deleted. I wanted to see what others thought, so I'd rather not close this early, if it's not too much of an annoyance to others. delldot talk 07:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Which is really kind of a shame. Seems like an interesting organization; consider cleaning it up and reposting it. SingCal (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Author-requested deletion, doesn't look possible to fix or improve it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me, thanks for the input folks! :) delldot talk 02:20, 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; content already included at Blaze Bayley (heavy metal band). Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Bayley band members[edit]

This band isn't, say, the Beatles, where one might have a Stuart Sutcliffe and a Pete Best. Not encyclopedic. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per nom; senseless list of NN band members. Merge any sourcable information into the main band's article and redirect. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Blaze Bayley for same reasons as User:Spawn Man. --DAJF (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on the great man himself. Nimmo (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Info is already substantially available on Blaze Bayley (heavy metal band). Any info not currently there could easily be added. Jcuk (talk) 22:02, 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. east.718 at 23:14, December 14, 2007

Kwan Ying Do[edit]

Non-notable martial arts style. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN and Google search didn't turn up anything useful. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resources The article does need more content and facts but please see link: wing sing school of Kwan Ying Do there are many listings under the aOL search engine about this. --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) On further inspection of the link I provided though it looks like this article is a cut and paste unfortunatly. --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 03:25, 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 as a short-term news story. Articles are not created here with the expectation that they may "become" more notable. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kreager[edit]

Wikipedia is not a news site, and this article is lacking sourced content to verify that the subject is of lasting significance beyond her current appearance in the news. An article can be recreated if and when the subject can be established as historically notable. Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#NEWS. --Muchness (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article and many others should be made as accessible as any other news worthy of being kept on the minds of American people.

Delete - I agree with the nom on this one; the incident occurred very recently and is subject to WP:NOT#NEWS. I'd suggest transwiki'ing to WikiNews (But they'll probably already have an article there) and deleting the article until and if the incident becomes more of a historical, noteworthy incident, in which case it'd almost certainly be an article on the incident not the people involved. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Covered in many news articles. Nationally famous story. A female Rodney King/white Rosa Parks Justforasecond (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:NOT#NEWS? Plus you wrote the article so you may be biased. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of wider significance, although I suspect the Vanguard News Network feels it's epochal. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, At this point just a passing news story, if it becomes more widely reported and lasting signigicance, then a recreated article might be appropriate. Jons63 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and review again later as per Justforasecond and because if the story grows, the initial event would be something people look for in an encyclopedia. --Arcanios (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and review again later - Agree with Arcanios, keep and review later - story is growing. Phreakster 1998 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete - this is local juvenile crime. Phreakster 1998 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an event of national significance. I live in San Francisco and was on every tv yesterday, very unfortunate incident, hate crime reminiscent of Rodney King. User:olympic97 (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2007 — Olympic97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete local news story which until there's more of a general dialouge among the nation about it, is not that notable currently. Nate · (chatter) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are more than Google 4700 hits on this incident and it's moved beyond news articles and into blogs, etc. This is not a story that is going to die. I think the article would be about her, not the incident since a "baltimore bus beating" article wouldn't narrow the topic much. :) Mdlawmba (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Looking at articles on other high-profile, similar crimes, it is hardly uncommon for the victim to be the article rather than the incident. In fact, I couldn't find many "incident" articles, even the Manson murders doesn't have one. I don't think the electrons will be too inconvenienced if we keep both articles until know how the story becomes known, i.e. the "rodney king incident" or the "I-10 beating". Mdlawmba (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect to article about incident) - If the story grows then an article on the incident (which I'm sure already exists) is appropriate. However, an independent biographical article on the victim is not warranted. Being the victim of a crime does not, in itself, establish notability for an individual. Editors should please take care to distinguish between the notability of an incident and the notability of individual people involved in the incident. (--Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of article BLP was intended for. Unless there is continuing coverage, it should be deleted. if there is, it should not be under her name. DGG (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect by article about the incident--there already is one at Baltimore bus beating], which I deprodded, pending this discussion. The prominence of the name of a victim is a violation of the spirit of BLP. DGG (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and review again later this is in important story and it isn't over yet, more information will emerge with the trial, lets asses it again after that - Schrandit (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incident has already moved way beyond the scope of just an entry from the "police blotter" of a big-city newspaper, or even "local news", for that matter. Kepiblanc (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, this is a one-off news story. There is no extensive coverage, and probably will not be. Natalie (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least it should be kept until we see if the incident remains, or just kinda gets thrown the way of being forgotten. Not to mention, other people who are associated with an incident typically have an article page for themselves. Timmie.merc (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Connor (aerospace engineer / Entrepreneur)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael O'Connor (aerospace engineer / Entrepreneur)

Non-notable engineer. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN; Google search didn't turn up many secondary sources either. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for inclusion per WP:BIO - Dumelow (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity hagiography. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:50, 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. DS (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Wars[edit]

Not notable. It was listed as A7 for speedy but books don't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Google search brings up Wikipedia and the publisher, not even Amazon [21]. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN book. It's a good guide that if the author doesn't have a page, neither should the book. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor point, the author did have an article, but it has been speedily deleted 8 times. James086^{Talk | Email} 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even more reason. Plus the book looks partially self-published as one of the publishers was Norgaard Publishing; Norgaard being the surname of the author. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, perhaps criterion A7 should be extended to include media such as films, books and radio shows, however this isn't the place for CSD discussion. James086^{Talk | Email} 07:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published/vanity-published book. If A7 covered books this would surely have been rightly speedied. On a completely unrelated note, the description makes no sense: How could someone spend 11 years in the Korean war which lasted less than half that? No wonder he was bored... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Although according to some the Korean war did last 11 years. RMHED (talk) 18:02, 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.

Fuck whoever wrote this you can go suck a big fat 1

at least i wrote something and fuck you if its self published im no stephen king you Feg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Midlands[edit]

Unreferenced. No claim to notability given. Nehwyn 19:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reference in the article. Masterpiece2000 12:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Search terms "Mega Midlands"+LGBT give over 500 terms on search results. While the article needs referencing, it meets my threshold for notability. Jeffpw 11:06, 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, Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not assert notability. The subject is a NN event that, as even the article states, is a small regional occurance with profits going to the "local" LGBT organisations; hardly notable. I wouldn't expect an event from my area where profits go towards the local day cares to get an article and the same should be expected for this event. I don't see any links that could make it seem any more notable. Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google result turns up very little - most of the 400 (when you take out wikipedia and mirrors) are self-promotion. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:00, 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 Speedy delete as non-notable, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IEye[edit]

Seems to be a promotion for the show, too comprehensive too feel like an acceptable CSD. No apparent notability. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (already tagged by another editor) for not even asserting notability and possible spam. --DAJF (talk) 03:57, 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 Withdrawn. Although it was nominated and two people have argued for a delete vote, the article has since been found to have been vandalised and is about a fictional character rather than a real person. Therefore the comments below are disregarded as not being applicable to the actual article in question. The nominator has also requested this debate be withdrawn. I close with no prejudice on a relisting for the article as it is now written. Hiding T 10:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Dynamite[edit]

Does not appear to be a legitimate article. Link does not mention any comic book. Fails test for notoriety. Konczewski (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: As noted below, this is a legitimate article on a comic book character that had been vandalized. Please ignore request to delete. Konczewski (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO (criteria 3). Can't find any reliable sources. Google only shows MySpace, YouTube, AOL Video, and blog posts made by the subject in question. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and no reliable sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The comic is legitimate (and was recently reprinted). It looks like someone vandalized the article in January. I'd clean it up myself, but have limited access from work. 205.200.189.2 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I removed the vandalism. Moderators, can you ignore my request to delete? Konczewski (talk) 18:43, 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. Notability of the subject appears to be primarily due to her manner of death, and even then is because it is a part of a greater story. I would support looking into the creation of an article (or the addition of content to an already-existing one) concerning the greater issue of narcotrafficos and murder, but this individual subject is not of sufficient importance. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zayda Peña[edit]

Keep Needs rewriting but worthy of an entry. The three murders linked angle is worthy in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.64.166 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources sited, poorly written for encyclopedic formatting, also incredibly biased. As said before, the band has no page, no name recognition. Thank you for your contribution, but Wikipedia is not a personal tribute service. JToddTheMighty

Non Notable. Band she played in doesn't have page either. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Luis Aquino; member of a NN band, no sources and Wikipedia is not a Memorial. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
Biased Keep as creator of the article. But seriously, even if I didn't create the article, I would have voted Keep because while she was only on the tinge of notabily in her life, her death, as a murder, catapulted her into the Mexican spotlight. And the fact that she was second (out of three) in a week is amazing. Look her up in Google ad you get 600,000 hits. I even read an article in Yahoo News on how many times she was Googled! ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The death made newspaper headlines that demonstrated how even singers who protest against the narcos get axed. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5348991.html WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is contesting that yes indeed the subject was killed, but instead asking whether they were notable prior to the killing. The link you provided is void in which case, because it doesn't assert notability to the musician before he was killed. It's sad I know, but Wikipedia isn't a Memorial and unless this developes into something more, he's just a musician from a NN band who was killed. C'mon let it go; I hate trying to prove dead people are NN - makes me think they'll get revenege or something... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no rule that people can't become notable post mortem. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if one can say she is not notable prior to killing, that does not mean the article should be deleted - This may become a cause celebre regarding Mexico's drug cartels. Yes, it could be renamed (to "Zayda Pena murder case") - Since I have lots of sources, I will try to ensure that this won't become a memorial. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep in mind WP:NOT#NEWS. This incident has only recently happened and it might not turn out to be nothing - creating an article about how everything could be connected is what reporters do - it's called OR here on wikipedia and is counter productive. Besides, releasing information like that could disrupt any police investigation (Remember that guy who was detained after a vandal said he was a terrorist?). The subject is simply not notable at the moment. He might be if the murders are connected, but only then as a victim of the "Mexican Musician Murderer", not actually as a stand alone band member. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If information is stricly from reliable sources (such as what I posted), OR should not be an issue - If Pena turns out to be not notable on her own, the article could be renamed and the actual name of the singer could redirect. Of course, since this is a developing issue, we could wait and see if the name could stand out on its own. It may also help to get Spanish-speaking Wikipedians who may determine notability on Spanish-speaking websites, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I give up. You know my views. The community can decide via consensus. It was fun debating though - I'm enjoying AfD'ing right now. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, okay :) - I'll work on the article extensively so that the article no longer reflects a Memorial - I already added the effect of the death (singers not connected to drugs are feeling afraid for their lives!) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per kitia and whisper. You've Got Mail! (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears sufficiently notable based on the facts of her life and death. Soxthecat (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It certainly appears that an article on the series of musician murders that hers was one of deserves a place here. Per WP:BIO1E, if such an article existed, I would suggest a merge into it rather than a separate article for her. Even the newspaper stories cited, while in extremely respectable sources, are typically not solely about her but about the series of murders. In any case, now that good sources have been added to the article, I think its content should be kept somewhere, and in the absence of an appropriate merge target I guess that somewhere = here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On going major news story in Mexico of notable Mexican artists deaths.--EndlessDan 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE -- vote canvas attempt by Kitia- [[22]]. Guroadrunner (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a total of that one single posting for this article, to urge one single person, an ip who had contributed on the talk page of the article to register. That's not much of a canvass. DGG (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be sufficient sources for notability. I wasn't canvassed, not were the experienced editors saying keep immediately above me.DGG (talk) 02:36, 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. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ordean Middle School (Duluth Minnesota)[edit]

No claim for notability, just a history of the school's creation. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't assert school's notability. NN. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:06, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rona[edit]

Doesn't seem to or make any claim to meet WP:BIO, quick Google check revealed mostly advertising or non-notable references (i.e. LinkedIn). Scott.wheeler (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reputedly notable for being the only "officially licensed Israeli tour guide with LDS membership". I think not. NN and Google searches haven't provided anything fruitful... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible speedy. Being a tour guide of a particular faith is not a claim to notability of itself. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was apparently earlier a contested prod, which is why I brought it here. Scott.wheeler (talk) 15:46, 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. east.718 at 23:15, December 14, 2007

Dunbar Herford[edit]

Procedural nomination: an anon editor blanked these articles claim they were all hoaxes. In the first few hundred ghits for "Glenoak Party" there's nothing much about these people - a hit or two but no RSes, so maybe they're not hoaxes but just not notable either.

Also nominating:

Glenoak Party Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Glenoak Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm pretty sure they're well written hoaxes, but there's a slim chance they might not be (Hence my weak delete). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Anne Alter[edit]

Delete unsourced blp for minor actress, fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN actress whose only role was as a minor character in a barely notable film series. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete need more evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 03:31, 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. Similar to the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zayda Peña, the subject's individual notability is based on two things: his band (in which case, they should have an article) and his death (which is part of a greater issue that may very well merit an article itself). Content on Aquino would fit well into articles on either, but alone, he does not appear to be of sufficient encyclopedic importance. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Luis Aquino[edit]

Non Notable. Band he played for doesn't have it's own page. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a Memorial. Aquino was killed on December 6th and obviously a fan or someone else has posted his bio here as a result. There are a tonne of sources on the internet about his death, but he is only notable for being killed and being in a NN band, so I still feel the article should be deleted. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Why was the tag removed?-Carados (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tag was removed, dear Carados, because I was going to edit the article to show his notability. Besides his death, he was notable for being in a band, while unfortunately not having his own article, had released six albums and appeared in a movie. And about his death, he was the third Mexican musician to be murdered in a week! Imagine that. It must've instantly catupulted Aquino and his band into the national spotlight. That makes him notable, I'm sure. More details on him will soon emerge, I fancy. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I've read a policy somewhere that says being the victim of a crime does not make you notable in itself. Don't worry though, if he's notable you have a few days before this AfD finishes to add those sources and assert the subject's notability (Unless this discussion snowballs). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The third major Mexican musician killed in a week! I think it deserves an article. The other two do. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What 2 other mexican musicians have articles? And just because 3 people of a similar profession die in a week doesn't mean they deserve articles. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other two are Sergio Gomez and Zayda Peña. And they didn't just die, they were murdered, with possible organized crime links. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm most likely making up a policy, but Wikipedia is not a Psychic. It is just speculation that there is organzied crime involved (that I can tell). I am gonna nominate Zayda Pena (with the little squigly thing) also along the same lines as this one. I doubt anything will come up that will assert notability. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, WP:CRYSTAL goes exactly toward the proposition that "Wikipedia is not a psychic", so you need not to worry that you've made up policy (on the applicability of CRYSTAL here I have no opinion; I mean only to offer the link). Joe 06:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speculating that all cases are connected is what reporters do - it's also called OR on here. Until there's proof that all the cases are connected, the fact remains that the subject was part of a NN band in which case it merits deletion. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His band was on the fringes of notability, appearing in a movie, and what really made him famous was the off circumstances of his death. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a Memorial, and this article fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? I already established its notability earlier in this discussion. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per kitia. You've Got Mail! (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete biography of a person notable only for one thing (his death). As his band isn't notable, there is no indication he would've been had he not died. Will ^(talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said, the band was notable. It appeared in a movie for crying out loud! ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Band is a redlink as of this post. Will ^(talk) 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know. He was also notable for his death and the distress it caused. If it is really bothersome I will create the band's article to settle this because I know its notable. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]]'' (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for his death and being part of a sami-major band. I'll bust your beak! (time for some beak bustin'!) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - The band was semi major.. Being a fan of Mexican music and visiting Mexico 4 times i have heard of the band. Those who have not heard of him or the band before his death would think of this as a memorial page but some think other wise. Another idea is to merge the article in to a page such as "Mexican Musician Killings of 2007".. It is just an idea. Chandlerjoeyross ^(talk) 12:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, as per Chandlerjoeyross. I'd note that I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if it were an American or British musician of similar stature within his country who were murdered. --Delirium (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Mexican band.--EndlessDan 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. If others, more knowledgable about Mexican music than me, feel that this band was notable, surely there should be an entry --Yorkie19 (talk) 12:40, 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 as no consensus for the same reasons as the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton. As in that AfD, no prejudice against starting a new deletion discussion if one is deemed necessary by an uninvolved party. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray O. Wyland[edit]

Being one of the two founders of an organization doesn't make a person notable. Also, most of the sources come from Boy Scouts material, which is a POV. Miranda 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, NN and no sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not notable enough to warrant an independent article. There are hundreds maybe even thousands of founders of notable organizations. While Ray actions are commendable being one of two founders, Ray does not have enough other notable achievements to have an independent article. Also, the sources listed are mostly from the organization and are not independent enough to support the article. HistoricDST (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting articles up for AFD out of a sense of revenge just isn't appropriate. (This is.IMO, in response to the listing of the less well known founders of DST up for AFD.) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Notability of Founders Naraht (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Preference is for keep, but I'd be ok with a merge into an overall Founders of Alpha Phi Omega. However, this is most certainly a bad faith nomination and that should be taken into consideration. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is a bad faith nom? And it's also a little fishy that both you and Naraht are both members of Alpha Phi Omega - there's probably one of those secret frat-cult-member-stick-together things that obliges you to save Alpha Phi Omega articles from deletion riight? Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reason the nominator put this up for nomination was because several articles of hers were put up for nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell by me, and she highly disagrees with that. Rather than throw a huge stink about this, I'm willing to consider a merge into the main Alpha Phi Omega article or even merge this, plus the other bad-faith noms, into a generic "founders of Alpha Phi Omega" article. And the personal attack isn't really necessary. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references, but given the national scope and history of the organization, the connection may grant some notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me references and I'll change my vote, but I can't just abandon WP:V. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnews [23] Gbooks [24] and [25] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment clearly a retaliatory WP:POINT for nomination (here "Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too" and here "Let's see, how about I AFD all of the Eagle Scout founders, and we will call it even."), see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Reed Horton. Cannot endorse deletion, however merited. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:48, 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 due to lack of consensus. This is getting heated and off-topic, and the diffs posted by Pete Hurd are enough to call into question the good faith of this AfD. An early close seems called for to defuse the issue. No prejudice against another AfD, if one is deemed necessary by someone unconnected to this little tiff. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Reed Horton[edit]

Being one of the two founders of an organization doesn't make a person notable. Also, most of the sources come from Boy Scouts material, which is a POV. Miranda 00:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, NN. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I vote to delete this article. The sources listed in this article are not independent sources and are inadequate to fully support this article. Also, the subjet of the article is not notable enough to warrant an independent article. HistoricDST (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Preference is for keep, but I'd be ok with a merge into an overall Founders of Alpha Phi Omega. However, this is most certainly a bad faith nomination and that should be taken into consideration. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting articles up for AFD out of a sense of revenge just isn't appropriate. (This is.IMO, in response to the listing of the less well known founders of DST up for AFD.) See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Notability of Founders Naraht (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above, I fail to see how this is a bad faith nom? And it's also a little fishy that both you and Justinm1978 are both members of Alpha Phi Omega - there's probably one of those secret frat-cult-member-stick-together things that obliges you to save Alpha Phi Omega articles from deletion riight? Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reason the nominator put this up for nomination was because several articles of hers were put up for nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell by me, and she highly disagrees with that. Rather than throw a huge stink about this, I'm willing to consider a merge into the main Alpha Phi Omega article or even merge this, plus the other bad-faith noms, into a generic "founders of Alpha Phi Omega" article. And the personal attack isn't really necessary. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me references and I'll change my vote, but I can't just abandon WP:V. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 04:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prosify, and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As she threatened to do here "Fuck, let's just delete Alpha Phi Alpha's founders too" and here "Let's see, how about I AFD all of the Eagle Scout founders, and we will call it even." we have a WP:POINT retaliatory AfD for a frat founding, scouting mucketey-muck. I think he's not notable, and ought to be delted, but I can't endorse behaviour like this. (Note: in retrospect, I think the articles she wrote that were up for AfD that I !voted "delete" on ought to have been kept and cleaned up, which was the outcome. I understand her anger, but this is just not on. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hightower Trail Middle School[edit]

Non-notable middle school with no claims of notability. I originally put a speedy delete tag on it but changed it to an afd tag after seeing that it's been here since May without a single source or any edits to show what makes it notable. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and unchanged stub. Arthurrh (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert subject's notability. NN. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article says nothing to prove that the Middle School is notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an above nom, does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 10 out of 10 and five stars from who? By the way, Notability is proposed, so as of now, it doesn't apply. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete middle school. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Uddin[edit]

The subject appears to want it deleted (see the history). It looks rather borderline to me, and lacks tons of references that should be there on a living person's article. I say it would be best gone. Red rocket boy 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Under WP:CSD#GC7, Author requests deletion, as per their blanking and edits summary. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean G7? It doesn't apply here, as others have made substantial edits to it Red rocket boy 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, G7 (Sorry, linked the 'C'). I checked the history and there hasn't really been that much improvement, mostly a reshuffling of the paragraphs. In any case then delete because it's an article of a living person with no sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say G7 doesn't apply here. These ( [26], [27] ) appear to me as not substantial contributions, but not mere minor edits either. Spebi 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation [28], through a proxy, the subject of an article request deletion. If libelous info present, delete the information. If the subject is not notable, delete. If other BLP violations, correct them. Who is Sultan, anyway? A non-notable person? Congolese (talk) 02:52, 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 — Caknuck (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Grace McCarty[edit]

Promo page for person who gets 4 g-hits as "Kathryn Grace McCarty", the first being the Wikipedia page, the second being her myspace page. No independent sources appear on the page. Cyclone Ranger (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search (-wikipedia) turns up one hit which is a duplicate of the wikipedia article anyway. Clearly NN. Article created by the SPA Cworld (talk · contribs) who's only real contributions are to this article and uploading photos of the subject. The only sources mentioned on the article are links to the subject's own websites and associative websites. Clearly a (self) promotional page. Delete. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am suspicious when a subject is "critically acclaimed", yet there are no references to reviews by critics, which could support notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn community college instructor. JJL (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:26, 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) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodside Middle School[edit]

non-notable middle school. It's been a one paragraph stub for over 5 months. Arthurrh (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not assert subject's notability. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable middle school. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria established at Wikipedia:Notability (schools)#Primary education. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. This article seems to follow a pattern I've found in school based articles. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:26, 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 merge extremely important content. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Higgins[edit]

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Merge any verifiable information into the main game article and redirect. The character is not notable enough to have his own article - not without secondary sources. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. JJL (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT into Adventure Island (video game). Does not seem to be independently notable outside of the game. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please do not close this AfD quickly (wait at least one week), I hope I can find some "out of world" sources by then. --Pejman47 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Spawn Man and Quasirandom. PKT (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Forever[edit]

Non-notable video game. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Also, much of the article is game guide content with no information about the game's cultural relevance: Wikipedia is not a game guide. Chardish (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom - WP:NOT#GUIDE. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} —Preceding comment was added at 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep - Sufficiant evidence for notability given below. :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 10:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some content there but it needs heavy wikifying. WF is a popular and notable game in the indie PC games scene, having been featured in many publications. I agree it needs more information relating to the culture, but this could be easily found given some searching and, given WF's indie notability, I believe it still deserves an article. Mattie ^TK 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources: [29], Jay Is Games review by John Bardinelli, who was one of the panel on GameTunnel, the indie review site, and is a gaming journo, [30] PC World Magazine download info, in effect a mini-review by a named individual - a few nice quotes to lift. [31] Something Awful even has it in an article, as does 1up [32], which isn't major coverage but another liftable quote for reception. There's various other sources which don't come from such recognized publishers, but could be useful for citations. The article is in a state but that can be fixed. Someone another (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep convinced by above sources of the notability of the subject, for the rest: WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the genre of bullet hell and boss shoot em ups, Warning Forever is an influential and seminal title. We need to capture that. Air (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Reading around, this game has established a basic level of notability. Would appreciate a little more research though. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:09, 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. — Scientizzle 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale[edit]

(Renamed by me from Buffy's residence). A fan essay about the lead character's house in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; unreferenced. WP:OR, WP:NOT probably apply. kingboyk (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN and CRUFT. If needed, merge any useful and sourcable information into an appropriate article and redirect. But I do like what she's done with the place though! Very nice painting scheme... ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, very tasteful :) Alas, merge and delete isn't allowable under the GFDL as far as I know. It'll have to be one or the other.--kingboyk (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? I wasn't aware of anything like that? You can always merge sourced information into a present article can't you? (Could anyone provide some policy links for me?) Well, if not redirect then to Buffy Summers. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, here's what I meant. :) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As far as merging and deleting is concerned, see WP:MAD. sh ¤y 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That helps a lot. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it does. I've not seen that before either. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-universe info, I doubt this house is notable enough for it's own article. Any info we could find on filming locations/sets etc should just be mentioned on the TV show article. Paul 730 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fan cruft, no out-of-universe notability. Make sure to delete the redirect too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, and I cannot find a precedent for keeping. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certain useful and sourced details should be merged with the main Buffy the vampire slayer article. There is nothing notable about this house other than it was the Buffy's house. It certainly wasn't the first sitcom with families who lived in houses.Wgfcrafty (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a particularly strong argument. First off, BtVS was not a SITuationCOMedy. Second, what makes the home noteworthy is the fact that it is an actual home, and not a set on a back lot. Fans of the show (myself included) have visited the home. Third, Buffy wasn't the first show to feature a female lead or vampire characters either, but it doesn't follow that such aspects merit no discussion. Buffy lived in a house, and fans like to discuss this house. AMCsoldier (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for cruftiness and lack of third-party notability. Biruitorul (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and as cruft. Doc Strange (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. jj137 ♠ Talk 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, the "noteworthiness" of Buffy's home is the fact that it is an actual residence in Torrance, CA. This results in an interesting analysis and comparison of the actual home versus the home interior portrayed on the show. Additionally, fans may be unaware that the home actually exists, and would like to know that fact. AMCsoldier (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply to AMCsoldier, Wikipedia is not a Buffy fan site, it doesn't matter if fans like discussing the fictional locations of the show. They can do that elsewhere, there's a whole wiki dedicated to Buffyverse topics. Being a real house doesn't make it notable at all... lots of houses in film and TV are real, I can think of the Myers house from Halloween and the Thompson house from Nightmare on Elm Street off the top of my head. Just because a topic is interesting to fans does not make it notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. As I said above, sets and locations can be mentioned on the BtVS article, or even the Sunnydale article - if that article were rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective, it might pass policies. Paul 730 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be very interested in a page discussing the real-life Halloween & Nightmare on Elm Street as sub-pages of the main movie pages. If significant fan interest in a topic isn't enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, then I'd be very interested to hear your expert ruling on just what is important enough to merit a prestigious Wikipedia article. In your User page, you refer to Wikipedia as an "encyclopedia" - that is, a " work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge" (m-w.com). So, wouldn't the incongruities between the Torrance home and the fictitious Sunnydale home merit some distinction as part of a comprehensive Buffy entry? And furthermore, wouldn't a fan searching for info on the Buffy home (perhaps to make a pilgrimage to it) seek such information on an encyclopedic site such as Wikipedia? But hey, what the heck do I know? I'm just a regular Wikipedia user; I'm not a self-appointed Wikipedia "guardian" or "authority" or whatever. AMCsoldier (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - At no point in this discussion have I claimed to be an "expert", "guardian", or "authority" of Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, I regularly refer to other editors for help and advice. You want to know how a topic merits a "prestigious Wikipedia article" (loving that sarcasm by the way), well, the answer is notability. Basically, a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" deserve individual articles. You're right, an article about the Summers house would probably be very interesting to fans of the show, but I doubt the house has recieved much coverage in mainstream media. If there is any relevant information regarding this house and the filming locations, it should be covered on Wikipedia as part of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) article, since the house is only notable for being part of the show. Only if the house is individually notable does it really deserve an individual article. Otherwise we would (and do) have fans creating articles for everything they can think of vaguely related to the series, just because they find it interesting. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you can find enough third-party sources discussing the house, then it might deserve an article, but it's hard enough establishing notability for the individual characters, I doubt the house they lived in is particularly notable. Paul 730 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good answer (and no sarcasm here). I understand now why this article is up for deletion. I do still think the fact that the house actually exists in Torrance, CA is noteworthy enough to merit a mention somewhere in the larger Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) article, but I see now why it shouldn't have its own, separate page. AMCsoldier (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.9.51 (talk) [reply]

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

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

Cameltoe[edit]

The result was Keep per WP:N. Non admin closure NAHID 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dictionary definition of a neologism (ignore that bit please, I seem to have made a mistake describing it as such) parading as an encyclopedia article (WP:NOT) and, dare I say it, an excuse to put some pretty pictures into the encyclopedia. Nothing encyclopedic here; suggest transwiki and/or deletion. kingboyk (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This subject is clearly notable and, although badly written at the moment, is notable enough to be included. I'd go and find sources myself if I didn't think my fiance would think I was looking at anything I wasn't meant to be looking at (If you get what I mean). Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a well known word, but that's all it is: a word. That's what Wiktionary is for. I'm struggling to see how anything encyclopedic could be written on the topic. Is that a cue for me to do some research? :) --kingboyk (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
Keep, badly written and needs better sourcing, but it's not really a neologism. Though I have my doubts about that first reference... Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You forgot to tag the article for AFD - I did it for you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The script I use must have failed. Thanks for taking care of it :) --kingboyk (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Corvus cornix that it needs a rewrite and better sourcing (and probably only one salacious image). This has achieved WP:N however. JJL (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :..( - Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's definitely not a neologism, and the sources seem to be legit. I have no idea how it could be expanded, however. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mansour's Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century (ISBN 0740751182) devotes exactly 3 sentences to the subject, one of which is a personal opinion. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corvus cornix. Clearly notable, references need improvement. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it gets some Gnews hits: [33], [34], [35]. Other hits are for a Toronto-area band of that name (e.g. [36]), probably different from this band [37], [38] and this band [39], [40]; here's a CD by that name [41]. How many bands have to name themselves after it before it becomes notable? Here's a NY Time story on the phenomenon: [42]. Certainly it's at the Urban Dictionary [43], but many blog and video clip hits too. JJL (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- :..( - Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, and per Spawn Man (notwithstanding his fiance issues). Geeesh. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel warm and fuzzy inside! ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting, 'cause warm fuzzy is up for deletion right now... oh wait, already been redirected.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Corvus cornix. The NYT story helps; I'm reasonably sure there's enough information around for a decent article. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me there's a conspiracy...? ;) Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't forget to peek at Handbra. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ten Pound Hammer. Article has multiple sources.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. Article should be a definition, as it isn't really encyclopedic. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 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 split decision on balance as pipesdrums is a commonly used source in other pipe articles like Ryan McFarland, the coverage is sufficient to address WP:MUSIC requirements. Gnan garra 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darach Urquhart[edit]

Non-notable piper who does not seem to have come first too often in any regional competitions, let alone major ones.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC PKT (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as references have been added. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Urquhart has won numerous important prizes at a world class international level and is ranked well within the top 100 pipers in the world. Both PKT and Spawn Man have suggested that this article be deleted as it does not meet WP:MUSIC.

If these two individuals had taken the time to follow the links and research the notability of this article they would have indeed found that this article does meet WP:MUSIC. Particulary as the information needed to establish notability can be found right here on wikipedia I’m quite surprised that this article is up for deletion in the first place! Please see ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Meeting The Wiki Page). Then look at (http://www.northern-meeting.org The Northern Meeting Official Site)

Taking, for example the Argyllshire Gathering in Oban. Firstly this is an International competition reserved only for the world’s finest competitive pipers. To qualify for this competition in itself is a tremendous achievement as it is for the Northern Meeting, and places Urquhart well within the top 100 pipers in the world.

Entry to the Argyllshire Gathering see [44], one of the premier piping competitions in the world has rigorous entry testing based on track record of past results and there is no question it meets (criteria 9) and WP:MUSIC.

Now, not to mention qualifying for this prestigious competition several times Urquhart has placed 5th in the B Strathspey & Reel and finished Runner-Up in the prestigious Silver Medal for Piobaireachd. This gained him acceptance to the Gold Medal competition as he would have been graded A, after his fantastic result in the Silver Medal Competing Pipers Association.

Now please also notice that Urquhart has also been a regular prize-winner in the CPA William Grant & Sons B & C Piobaireachd league. He has placed many times in this prestigious competition beating off international opposition. See various links. Not only so but indeed Urquhart was victorious at the the CPA William Grant & Sons B & C Piobaireachd at Perth Highland Games in 2003.

Please also notice that quite a few of the links are to Pipes Drums Magazine. This is the world’s largest Piping Publication and is totally independent! ^[1] If MacRusgail had taken the time to look through the links thoroughly he/she would have found this. To be an individual who gets published on PipeDrums Magazine clearly defines that individual as notable and newsworthy.

Now let's discuss MacRusgail’s comments and “reasons” for recommending this article for deletion . MacRusgail quoted “Non-notable piper who does not seem to have come first too often in any regional competitions, let alone major ones” Lets take the “Non-notable piper”. It is quite clear form the evidence I have presented in this discussion that Urquhart is indeed a notable piper! Don’t take my word for it just look at the links and make your own mind up. Now, let's take the second half of MacRusgail’s argument. “who does not seem to have come first too often in any regional competitions, let alone major ones” Again it is quite clear that Urquhart has won several major prizes at the premier piping competitions in the world. Again look at the evidence presented and the links provided to make up your own mind about this.

Whilst the competitive bagpiping world may be geographically contained, achievements within it are no less notable for that. I do believe the subject to be worthy of inclusion; in amongst the list of achievements are prizes at Highland and Island Young Piper of the Year, an event which the BBC describes as 'prestigious' in a note about a previous winner - Griogair Lawrie [45] I think this alone qualifies this particular sompetition as "major music competitions" and is enough to satisfy criteria 9. Again look at the links to see descriptions of the other major competitions Urquhart has had major success at.

In conclusion I think MacRusgail, PKT and Spawn Man have all presented extremely weak arguments which are not thoroughly researched. I have proved every one of their points wrong here in this discussion! Don’t take my word for it, just look at the cited sources and you will see for yourself. A Strong Keep.Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I used to be involved peripherally in the piping world. I have to say I'm not convinced. Thanks for the information, but I think you could have put it somewhat more succinctly... --MacRusgail (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have presented evidence which clearly defines Urquhart as one of the premier pipers in the world. Whether that is line with your ‘opinion’ or my ‘opinion’ is irrelevant and I will not be drawn on a childish “he said, she said” discussion. Thank you and all the best. Fing Yon —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (and yours) is entirely relevant in a vote like this. --MacRusgail (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my last comment was a little ambiguous and did not communicate it's intended meaning. Let me put it another way, I prefer to let the facts do the speaking and from there, people can make up their own minds. We can all talk until we are blue in the face about what should and shouldn’t be on wikipedia but without backing up those claims with solid fact and evidence of notability or solid evidence to the contrary, our comments are irrelevant. I have merely presented the facts and evidence of notability through the links provided. Anyways, thanks again and all the best in the future. Fing Yon

Keep based on Fing Yon's compelling analysis. Fromseatoshiningsea (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not saying bag-piping isn't notable, or that there are notable bag-pipers who have contributed to the field, however, in reviewing your analysis and article, I am not convinced that this individual is notable. Mbisanz (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep weighing up the arguments there are sources to support the claims. Does ToFU fall ~~clearly~~ specifically within the scope of WP:MUSIC is unclear as are the arguments that say delete per WP:MUSIC. While the arguments for keeping do show that some specific points listed in WP:MUSIC to establish notability ~~as per WP:MUSIC~~ are there, as are points from alternative guidelines WP:FICTION. Gnan garra 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refactored for clarity after request, based on discussion points

independent sourcing to support notability,
WP:MUSIC guideline unclear in this case, specific reason for deletion based on this guideline are unclear, presumed notability
WP:MUSIC - a prominent representative of a genre
WP:FICTION notability requirements addressed

Tons of Fun University[edit]

Not notable, most Ghits are to blogs and concert listings Amaryllis25^{"Talk to me"} 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per earlier prod. This performance ensemble does not appear to have sufficient importance for encyclopedic inclusion. They appear non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong Keep i honestly don't understand how their notability is even a question. this is a poetry/music project which has played the Vancouver Folk Music Festival's main stage twice (the festival commissioned them "to create some new work together"[46]), the Regina Music Festival[47], the Winnipeg Folk Festival, etc. they have an album review and concert review at the live music report[48]. youthink magazine mentions them in an article on the 2005 vancouver folk music festival as "a prime example of a style of music that is quickly gaining popularity: spoken word"[49]. a leader-post review of the regina music festival calls them "one of the great discoveries of 2005"[50]. of the members themselves, koyczan and mcgee are both National Poetry Slam Individual Grand Champions. and avery won the CBC's 2005 Vancouver Poetry Face-Off[51], and fronts a band "endorsed by the legend that is Tom Waits" as said in the bbc[52]. --dan 04:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have added some of the information raised above into the article which does give some notability to them. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've relisted this AfD, as the links provided by Ceyockey and Kingnixon/dan change the argument somewhat, but were provided too late to have been seen by past participants. I'd like to see some fresh eyes on the article before consensus is guaged. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Sorry, but their body of work so far doesn't qualify under any criteria in WP:MUSIC. Incidentally, the link to TOFU's official site [53] is offline (404). PKT (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note first i'll note that WP:MUSIC says right up front that "the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". that being said, they do meet some of the criteria: "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources" - i don't know if it's a tour per se, but they have performed all over canada and in the US. most of canada's music festivals, for starters. "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style" - of slam poetry/spoken word, as in the youthink quote above. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - not a band, but 2 of them are national slam grand champions. i think part of the problem is they are crossing genres; solely from a rock band pov they are probably not notable, but they are big names in the slam poetry community, and i think get notability here from that, just as if a musician put out a book of poetry. --dan (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band, or at least rename it to not confuse people! Mbisanz (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One very pertinent issue Dan raises in the problem of genre. There are specific sub-guidelines of WP:N because a musician, an author, and a corporate figure are treated differently by the press - there are different types and volume of press coverage, different benchmarks of achievement, etc, and so more specific WP:N guidelines have been created for each. However, not all articles will fit into one of the established categories, and when this happens it's necessary to use some common sense. I would suggest that because of this particular group's emphasis on spoken word and poetry, their work could also be considered to somewhat overlap with what would normally be covered with WP:FICTION, which has less specific "press coverage" requirements, which this group easily meets. Furthermore, within WP:Music the group also has become a "prominent representative of a notable style" (7) even if that style is more avant-garde, "won or placed in a major music competition " (9) (if we consider major poetry slams music competitions - again, an overlap of categories is evident here), and has certainly been mentioned in enough independent published works to at least approach requirement (1). Again, however, I emphasize that the WP:N guidelines can only be just that, guidelines, especially for this case. -Orphic (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me And My Monkey[edit]

The article has no use- if the information is useful and you want it to keep it, it should be emerged into the album's article Olliyeah (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Escapology (album). No need for a separate article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Escapology (album) song on its own is not notable as was not released as a single - Dumelow (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Escapology (album), per above. Apparently notable only in the context of the album. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per above. Doesn't merit its own article. Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:49, 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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV Guide covers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Will ^(talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a highly relevant list because who was on the cover reflects what was important in television (or in later years, society in general) at the time. If this page is deleted, what other lists will have to go? Certainly the list of Playboy centerfolds. That is essentially the same list as this one. (They even began the same year.) Same for List_of_SLAM_Magazine_cover_athletes, a page that is 2 1/2 years old and has hundreds of edits. How about List_of_celebrities_who_have_appeared_on_the_cover_of_Rolling_Stone_magazine, a less structured list than the TV Guide one, but which has had over 100 edits. If any list of magazine cover subjects should go, perhaps it should be List_of_people_of_Indian_origin_to_be_featured_on_the_cover_page_of_Time_magazine. There are lots of relevant questions that can be answered from the list of TV Guide covers, such as frequency of particular celebrities appearing on the cover and their range of years, popularity and earliest and latest appearance of particular artists, etc. Nearly every person who has ever been pictured on the cover of TV Guide has an entry in Wikipedia. All of this suggests that the List of TV Guide covers page is highly relevant to Wikipedia and should be retained. If anything, similar pages ought to be created for other magazines, such as the New Yorker and Sports Illustrated.Bellczar (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, all these articles should go to AFD. Secret ^account 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those other ones should be prod tagged first, then nominated if that fails. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad that this one hasn't gotten up and running. It's a noble idea, to list 2,500+ subjects (or whatever 55 years worth times 52 weeks), but I disagree that chronological lists of who was on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, etc. is a means of showing who was famous at a particular point in time. All it shows is who, among many candidates, was chosen to be on the cover of a magazine during a particular week in history. Who was on the cover is , something that magazine websites frequently do as part of their own promotion. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and let him work on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to offer that type of encouragement on a massive project, without some suggestions as to how it might work. The author has set this up on a trial basis, holding off on doing the whole project until he or she can see what the reception would be. To the author, if it were me, I would arrange it based on who was on the cover, say, from Bud Abbott to Daryl Zanuck, rather than chronologically. Again, it's not a slice of life that's being achieved here. It's only a record of which person had a "cover story" in TV guide in a particular issue. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above -- TV Guide was not just any magazine, it was a cultural icon, a place where stars would "make it big" after appearing on the cover. Yes, it's a long, daunting task, but it should be given a chance. And I consider it encyclopedic in nature, as Tv Guide is a mere shell of its former self today (personally, very hardly that). -- azumanga (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - which TV guide anyway?--Doc^g 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#INFO, anyways no reason on why being on a T.V guide cover is a claim of notabilty for all these actors or actress, yes T.V guide is a cultural icon and still is, but the covers doesn't make it a icon. Secret ^account 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete (needs specific discussion of one point) Many lists are encyclopedic and apt. A list of which person was on each cover of a magazine, for each weekly issue in its history, is probably not. The criteria of "not an indiscriminate collection" (WP:NOT) comes into play. A magazine that has to position a different celebrity each 7 days is almost surely driven more by the need to have a cover picture than to select "discriminatingly" as to notability. More to the point, whilst the people may be notable or the magazine, no good argument has been made that the list of cover celebs is notable. "List of people on covers of X publication" is not inherently notable for all or even most publications (a point made above); this one doesn't seem especially notable either. The main "keep" views are centered around four cases of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "highly relevant" (WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING refer), and ""if we delete this what happens to other pages" and "individuals are notable so a list that contains them is notable". None of these are actually AFD reasons that carry weight under community norms for AFD.
The only other reason that is given above, which might carry weight, is a claim that this specific magazine was so significant (so to speak) that its cover choice record was notable in and of itself. That's possible but would need some supporting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I respond to the anon who posted probably delete: Considering there were only about 60-80 shows on the big 3 networks at any particular time, it is significant that the same people and shows were repeatedly on the cover, considering they could have featured nearly every show on TV in the course of a year just by running through them. For example, Mary Tyler Moore was on the cover twice in 1973 alone. Lucille Ball was on the cover about once a year while she was actively making series and periodically thereafter. I think the case can be made that being featured on the cover was evidence of notability. It is worth repeating that nearly every person ever pictured on the cover of TV Guide has an entry in Wikipedia.

I should also point out that the list contains not only cover subjects but also artists (photographers/illustrators) and it is significant that some were featured frequently (e.g., Richard Amsel, who was also a famous movie-poster artist; Al Hirschfeld, who illustrations were on the covers over a span of more than 40 years).Bellczar (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how does that evidence that the magazine cover list was notable? Those people were listed in many many places - but the focus in this article is "magazine X covers". For example, many non-notable magazines would have had photos of celebrities on the cover, and these people would have been on the covers of many magazines too. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED... What I'm seeing is more, the argument that "the people are notable, so cover lists they were included in were notable". But it doesn't work that way. The issue is whether the magazine's coverlist itself was notable as a coverlist. Do we have evidence that people talked about "making it on the cover of TV guide" in the sense that they might have once talked about making it on the cover of Life, or winning an Oscar, or getting a Nobel prize (so to speak), ie, where the cover itself was notable and it's prestige is such as to make someone notable just for having been there, for example? Or as described above, was this specific magazine so significant (so to speak) that its cover choice record was notable in and of itself. Not just "another magazine with pictures of famous people". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. I have read in several articles or books about TV series that the cast was excited to be on the cover of TVG, which had the largest circulation of any magazine for many years. It was widely read in the industry. There were also jealousies fueled among minor cast members about how much visibility one minor player or another was getting from the cover. This suggests that making the cover is valuable in itself.Bellczar (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where's the cited evidence on this? This is mostly personal claims, and AFD needs cited evidence. A statement "I have read" isn't evidence of standing, nor is anecdote that people were "excited" or "got visibility" or "discussed how much visibility they got" from it. That it was widely read and published does not mean its cover list was in and of itself notable; many magazines are widely published whose cover details by issue are probably not. It would need exactly what is stated - evidence from third party reliable sources, that this magazine's cover list had enough significance (so to speak) that its cover choice history was notable in and of itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Most of the page is empty and seeing as there's a TV guide released frequently, the list would be undoubtedly endless... Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is "directory" in its worst form. Also, it is "original research" and/or "synthesis" to argue that every single person that appears on the front of a magazine have equally benefitted. I would have no problem with mentioning a person's appearance on a major magazine cover in that person's own article, but this list is not right. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate historical information. Not OR--the interpretation of it by the reader is up the reader. -- & I would have thought that the cultural significance of what is on the cover of TV Guide is obvious enough, at least to me. Making the cover is of significance in itself, and is mentioned in most articles about the people represented there. (That's why the magazine has an editorial staff?) If the article is incomplete, thats reason to complete it , not remove it, one of the few times I have ever seen actually advocating on afd the removal of an incomplete article with substantial content because it had not yet been finished! DGG (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, the TV Guide article itself does a good job asserting the magazine's cultural impact and the significance of being on the cover. Obviously, such an assertion does not belong in the list itself. Though the implication that each cover is "equally beneficial" to the featured individuals would obviously be OR (and absurd...) no such conclusion is implied by the list. It's a little bewildering to me how a simple record and list can be construed as OR, as by its nature there's no analysis or synthesis going on there...Orphic (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Several above have argued that TV Guide covers are culturally significant and notable, so allow me to present several reliable sources to prove it: TV Guide covers are the subject of news articles ("Not enough stars for TV Guide covers", "The autocrat of the coffee table: TV Guide, America's favorite coaster, becomes history in spite of itself" , "Collector is hooked on TV Guides", and over a thousand news articles containing the phrases "TV Guide cover(s)" or "Cover(s) of TV Guide"), academic papers ("Ignoring Change: An Evaluation of TV Guide Covers, 1970-1979"), books (The Covers of TV Guide, TV Guide The Official Collectors Guide: Celebrating An Icon, Changing Channels: America in TV Guide), and museum exhibits ("TV Guide and The Museum of Broadcast Communications Join Forces", "Museum as Reprieve From the Recycling Bin; From Coffee-Table Clutter to Coveted Collectible")! DHowell (talk) 21:24, 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.

^ pipes|drums

[nyt1-1] "Life is Long". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-09. There are certain conventions to telling the oldest-living-American story. We feel compelled to note that Mary Bidwell, who died two weeks shy of her 115th birthday, had a weakness for coffee. ... Mrs. Bidwell's husband died at 93 in 1975; their only son had been dead since 1945. Mrs. Thompson outlived two husbands and several children.

[2] "Mary Electa Bidwell. Oldest person in the USA". Bidwell House Museum. 1996. Retrieved 2007-12-09. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Mary Electa Bidwell, at 114, is the oldest person in the United States. Born in 1881, to Charles Woodruff Bidwell and Alice Beach Nobel, Mary Bidwell's life spans the time from kerosene lamps to home computers, from horse and wagons to automobiles.

[3] "Mary Electa Bidwell". Washington Post. April 27, 1996. Mary Electa Bidwell, who in Nov 1995 was said to be the oldest living American woman, died Apr 25, 1996 at the age of 114.

[4] "Mary Electa Bidwell, 114, was oldest living American". Associated Press. April 28, 1996. Mary Electa Bidwell, the oldest-living American, has died at 114. Mrs. Bidwell, born May 9, 1881, when James Garfield was president and Queen Victoria ruled half the world, died Thursday at a convalescent home in Hamden. Her grandson, William Bradford Bidwell, said she began to fail physically during the past two months. When the Guinness Book of Records recognized Mrs. Bidwell as the oldest-living American in November 1995, she said she did not have the answer to her ...

[5] "Oldest US woman is 114, from Conneticut". Boston Globe. December 8, 1995. The Guinness Book of Records has recognized a Hamden woman as the oldest person in the United States. But 114-year-old Mary Electa Bidwell can't read about it yet because the 1996 edition already has gone to press. Bidwell was born on May 9, 1881, two months before President Garfield was shot. She isn't sure why she's lived so long, but she's proud of her achievement. I feel I must be very good indeed.

[6] "Rosalia Women Turns 110". Wichita Eagle. Retrieved 2007-12-09. Flossie Page says 110 years of life will make you wise, content . . . and tired. She should know. She celebrated her 110th birthday Thursday at her Rosalia home. "I don't want to live a long while longer," she said Friday. "I think I've lived my life." She said she is glad she has lived so many years, but she would not recommend it to others. "Not unless you can help other people who

[7] "Flossie Page". Associated Press. February 25, 2006. Flossie page, the oldest Kansan on record, died Wednesday of pneumonia, according to granddaughter Becky Humig. She was 112 years, eight months and ...

[8] "Oldest Kansan Dies at 112". Wichita Eagle. February 24, 2006. Flossie Page didn't drink liquor or soda pop. She didn't smoke or cuss. But she did drink strong coffee and wasn't above killing an occasional snake in her garden with a hoe. Mrs. Page died Wednesday morning from pneumonia at the Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital in El Dorado. She had lived 112 years, eight months and 10 days, making her the oldest Kansan on record, according to the Gerontology Research Group, which research es the lifestyles of ...

[9] "Flossie Page". KAKE. May 9, 2004. Retrieved 2007-12-09. We don't often get a chance to meet history. But here she is. Flossie Page who next month will celebrate 111 years of life.

[10] WordNet Search - 3.0

[11] s|drums

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]