Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

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 Redirect NAC Reyk _YO! 03:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mollygood[edit]

Was a contested prod. Anyways, this is an article on a website that blogs about celebrities. There is plenty of them out there and I do not see how this stands out from the crowd of these celeb-blogs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fulfills criteria #3 of WP:WEB, namely that it is published through the very notable online publisher, Jossip, which has been covered by the NY Times, NY Post, Wired Mag, etc. etc. etc. Yes, there are plenty of gossip blogs, but this is actually one of the notable ones. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then should it redirect to Jossip then? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me. Right now, Jossip redirects to Trent Vanegas. That said, Jossip is well notable enough (with lots of independent coverage) for its own page, and Venegas apparently doesn't even write. So for the time being, why don't we redirect it to Trent Vanegas and I'll get cracking on a separate Jossip page in a little while. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What was trying to get at is this: while Jossip is pretty notable, I am not sure if Mollygood, just being published by Jossip, is notable on its own. If you wish to work on the Jossip article, go right ahead and if no one comes by this AFD, I can close it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understood your original point, which is why in the Jossip article I would include a section on Mollygood. I think that satisfies all problems. Mollygood technically does satisfy C#3 of WP:WEB, but I do think a merge would be more appropriate. What I was saying is that because there is no Jossip article currently, we should just redirect Mollygood to the Trent Venegas article for the time being, thereby preserving the history and the information. When the time comes that either I or another editor writes the article on Jossip, I will redirect Mollygood to Jossip. Does that sound okay? You can go ahead and close the AfD, I think. But if you want to leave it open, that's fine too. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That works, closing AFD now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and tag for a rewrite. Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Forum Nokia"[edit]

Reads like a press release, no references to establish WP:WEB notability --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, scrolling through google search seems to indicate it is an important organ of the Nokia body, but definitely needs a rewrite Guycalledryan 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rewrite and move to Forum Nokia or delete. Page was created by WP:SPA., seems important, but needs sources and a rewrite. OSborn^arf 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and why is it in double quotes? OSborn^arf 06:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it in quotes; why does it have no links to other articles; why does it have section headers '''like this''' instead of ==like this==? Maybe because it's a hit-and-run by someone who didn't take the time to learn anything about wikipedia before clumsily spamming it with a single-purpose account --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 07:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this looks like a hit and run. Changed to Rewrite/Delete. It seems these spammy people put their titles in double quotes a lot. I'll change around some of the headers to the wikistandard. OSborn^arf 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and move as per above. Bearian 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per all above. I just made the move. Giggy _U^CP 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect (done boldly by Dhaluza) . — Scientizzle 14:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Lane Elementary School[edit]

non notable elementary school ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article has existed for a year, more than enough time to establish some claim to notability, or at least evolve into some kind of coherent entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. No claim to notability, unless WP wants to become a listing of all schools ever constructed.xC | ☎ 04:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted because AfD header was inexplicably removed from the article page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 23:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability of the school.--JForget 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If all that can be said about it is "it's an elementary school", then we don't need an article about it. --Carnildo 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, isn't the general consensus that all schools are notable as places of learning?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guycalledryan (talk • contribs).
Delete - Wikipedia is not a guidebook. This page seems more like an entry in a school directory. No other information whatsoever. Hardly encyclopedic. - Hot Dog Wolf _{_What? ↔ _Felonies} 03:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —-- DS1953 ^talk 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect — to School District 38 Richmond per previous consensus on other articles. Already done. Dhaluza 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about the revert...I had browser trouble malforming the nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland in popular culture=[edit]

Article essentially contains trivia-like information that are not sourced. Delete per WP:V and WP:TRIVIA --JForget 23:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article would need some restructuring before it can be judged. The tabular format just doesn't work with this type of thing. Mandsford 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this isn't as wretched as some other "...in popular culture" articles, it's still a directory of loosely associated topics. The refernced items have nothing in common past the Iceland bit and they tell us nothing about Iceland or the real world. Otto4711 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Iceland article, doesn't really expand either the parent or referenced articles as it stands Guycalledryan 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. This is probably one of the best formatted foo in popular culture articles I've seen, but it remains a collection of loosely associated topics. Resolute 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few books that have some events take place in Iceland does not confer notability on the "Iceland in popular culture". Carlossuarez46 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, blatant WP:NOT#DIR violation. Blueboy 96 12:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and it's such a pity, as it's such a likeable article, sort of like ... Icelanders! :-) Bearian 22:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with the Iceland article. Per Guycalledryan. There aren't very many. The merge should also be accompanied by a verification --HAL2008_TK ^CT 23:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect In addition to WP:TRIVIA, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article clearly is. It's also unsourced, as a number of people have already said. (→O - R L Y?) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bachmann Thomas & Friends[edit]

Prod removed - but I agree with the prod, so here goes. Giggy _U^CP 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Thomas the Tank Engine article. Doesn't seem to show anything other than there is merchandise for sale. Rev. Awdry spinning in grave no doubt. Mandsford 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Editor: Look, I put references in here and you want it gone! It isn't helpful to have nothing when you could have up to date facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.67.123.8 (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sole reference is a primary source. Frankly, this isn't notable if it doesn't have other secondary and tertiary reliable sources. In response to the IP's comment, that had no teeth and is invalid. (→O - R L Y?) 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Adaptations of the Epic of Gilgamesh and trimmed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh in popular culture[edit]

Article consists mainly of unferenced and lenghty trivia info of which some can be merged to Gilgamesh article. Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V --JForget 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to Gilgamesh Giggy _U^CP 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Giggy. Not much relevant that I see; it's like an article about Armageddon including "Armageddon outahere" (note to the humourless: "I'm a-getting out of here" is the joke) and every mention of the name or word "armageddon". Mandsford 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if purged of all trivia, restricted to adaptations of the work itself and renamed Adaptations of The Epic of Gilgamesh. Similar to what was done with Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Adaptations of the work into other media are notable and encyclopedic. A directory of every instance the word "Gilgamesh" appears anywhere is not. Do not under any circumstances merge any of this into Epic of Gilgamesh or any other Gilgamesh article. Otto4711 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trivia should be cleared away, but a good article on Gilgamesh in popular culture is certainly doable, and articles that can be improved should not be deleted. -- Valerius 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expands both the parent and referenced articles and demonstrates cultural significance of Gilgamesh. Is above a mere trivia list Guycalledryan 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no, not really. It is just a mere trivia list. Resolute 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless pared down to the adaptations and renamed Adaptations of the Epic of Gilgamesh per Otto. I those are encyclopedic, the rest is just trivia. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Corpx, Resolute and nom. This is the most extreme form of listcruft and WP:V violations. Bearian 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an unsourced article, which can't be verified. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article clearly is. (→O - R L Y?) 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guycalledryan's insightful argument. Sheesh, the Epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest surviving work of literature -- does everyone saying "Delete" claim that it had no effect on the rest of Western Literature? If you can prove it does not, then hey, let's delete this article, nominate the Epic of Gilgamesh & Gilgamesh for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY -- hey, how can some jerk who died 5,000 years ago be important? He probably doesn't even have any living descendants. BTW, this list doesn't have a mention of The Simpsons, so for that one reason alone this list should be kept! -- llywrch 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion is not about gilgamesh - but rather about about documenting every time this was mentioned in a tv show or book or a song lyrics. Corpx 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that list is a bad thing in what way? Are you saying that this list does not & never will illustrate how Gilgamesh is perceived in popular culture? If so, please explain. Or are you saying that this perception is trivial? If this perception is trivial -- & thus non-notable -- then wouldn't the subject itself then be non-notable? Your nomination above is based solely on content, but instead of improving the content you decided to nominate this for deletion. Dislike of content is not a good application of the AfD process. -- llywrch 16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jung in popular culture[edit]

This article, like plenty of other in popular culture type articles contains a lenghty of unsourced trivia material Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V--JForget 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to Carl Jung Giggy _U^CP 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nominator is on to something here. All "in popular culture" articles should be judged individually, but it's 4 for 4 so far. The worth of an IPC article is inversely proportional to the number of references. Mandsford 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another directory of loosely associated items. The thing listed have nothing in common other than some reference to Jung and the article tells us nothing about Jung, the fiction from which the references are drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. Otto4711 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with others' rationale for deletion. The article has no references and a lot of the entries are loosely-related trivia at best. — Sam 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just trivia but an article which demonstrates cultural significance of Carl Jung and expands both his article and the articles that are mentioned Guycalledryan 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nearly entirely a trivia list, unsourced to boot: someone famous was treated by someone else's student, someone's influenced someone else's lyrics, etc. I don't think there's much (if anything) left to merge, but most biographies have a legacy type section to which presumably anything important and sourceable could be added. Carlossuarez46 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge lots can go, and everything needs to be properly sourced but it's definately interesting enough to merge with the main article. - Modernist 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text used to be part of Carl Jung, actually. I moved the text to its own article because it was too mammoth of a section for the article's size. If it is to be merged, it needs to be heavily picked through and trimmed, with an emphasis on high-quality references.— Sam 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I agree, this needs to be trimmed and it needs good references, while having quite a bit of interesting and worthwhile material worth putting back into the main article. Modernist 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this is my opinion, I don't think Carl Jung is as prominent in film, TV, cultural depictions, and steampunk as many other famous people (like Freud). Bulldog123 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've saved the text in my userspace so that substantial entries, when sourced, can be merged back into Carl Jung if this article is to be deleted. — Sam 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I see an article with cultural connections drawn to Herman Hesse, Siddhartha, Steppenwolf, Demian, James Joyce, Finnegans Wake, Joseph Campbell, George Lucas, Star Wars, Frederico Fellini, La Dolce Vita, Aura-Soma, Stanley Kubrick, Laurens van der Post and other stuff it gets my attention, and I really think it might actually be compellingly interesting, that is if the cruft could be eliminated and the really good stuff be elaborated on, edited and expanded. As it should be. Modernist 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. Plantocal 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unlike Freud who inspired John Huston to make a movie about him starring Montgomery Clift and Susan Kohner there hasn't been a movie called Jung. However this article in addition to my previous comment also references Apocalypse Now, Francis Ford Coppola, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Tom Wolfe, Ken Kesey, the Merry Pranksters, Ted Hughes, Alice Walker, not to mention the Jungian analytic sessions Jackson Pollock underwent during the 1950s that can be added. I think this all should be merged into the main article. This is an encyclopedia of information above all. Modernist 17:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly some unsourced trivia, plus the fact that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. I fail to see how this enhances the Carl Jung article. (→O - R L Y?) 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu in popular culture[edit]

This is another article that contains a lenghty list of unreferenced trivia data Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V --JForget 23:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to Cthulhu Giggy _U^CP 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cthulhu. Gesundheit. Don't know if there's anything worth merging. I think I'll just irritate the hell out of someone by not making it clear whether this is a !vote or not. !Tough Mandsford 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not trivia but a comprehensive list demonstrating cultural significance and which expands the Cthulhu article Guycalledryan 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant parts into Cthulhu mythos; Cthulhu mythos is not solely a creation of HP Lovecraft, but has been expanded on - both canonically and non-canonically - by others. Some elements of this article (with proper sourcing) would fall into the non-canonical usage. A quick search for "Cthulhu" at Amazon shows numerous (non-canonical) books about the Cthulhu mythos sufficiently demonstrating to me that there are WP:RSes that there is a notable "popular culture" aspect to this, but I feel it would be better handled in the mythos article. Second choice would be keep. Carlossuarez46 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — this article refers to a three-times presidential candidate. Cedars 12:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Talk:Cthulhu. Cthulhu is a figure from popular culture. The article on Cthulhu would be sadly incomplete if it omitted references to Cthulhu in metal and other popular music; if it ignored the Cthulhu role playing games; or even that Cthulhu has become something of a figure of fun, made into plush toys and the joke presidential campaign. The list format is surely unwieldy, and doesn't belong in the article in chief yet. But it contains information and ideas for future editors. This is what talk page subpages are for. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic clean-up trivia. Quick Google of Cthulhu in popular culture finds two books on this topic. [1] and [2]. I presume interested user could find more and write decent article. Canuckle 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just to be clear that's 2 books solely focused on this specific topic, as in their titles are: The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft And Extraterrestial Pop Culture and H.P. Lovecraft in Popular Culture: The Works and Their Adaptations in Film, Television, Comics, Music and Games. Canuckle 12:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although is comes dangerously near to listcruft, as per Cedars, Canuckles, and Guycalledryan, because it has independent cultural significance. Bearian 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC) As per my comment in another AfD, this is a marginal and difficult case: (a) it is not obviously listcruft (the "I know it when I see it" test), (b) it has, or could have, more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references. I may be banished from Gaylaxicon for these comments. Bearian 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cthulhu has significant cultural impact. And the stars are right. Axl 08:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's clear that WP is going to deal with pop cultural references to Cthulhu somehow--it's an extremely common trope. But sections on popular culture inevitably become listy; it's the nature of the beast, because anyone can add in example that they've seen. The point of having "...in popular culture" articles is to isolate these listy sections and maintain some coherence is the main article. Eliminating this article is just going to reduce the quality of Cthulhu--sure as rain leads to puddles. Nareek 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody cites reliable sources for this collection of trivia, it is original research. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and I fail to see how this enhances the Cthulhu article. (→O - R L Y?) 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should either be kept as is, or merged with the Cthulhu article. As Cthulhu is a very pervasive influence on world culture, above and beyond what Lovecraft intended, a list of influences on popular culture seems worthwhile. PseudoSherlock 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant cultural impact. Ab e g92contribs 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constellations in popular culture[edit]

This article also contains a trivia list which is unreferenced once again. Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V JForget 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to Constellation Giggy _U^CP 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ursa Merger anything relevant into the articles about individual constellations, assuming there is anything relevant. Thus, Cassiopeia trivia can go with Cassiopeia. As Bill Engvall said, "Here's your sign." Mandsford 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pure trivia. I also dont think the other article about astronomy should be filled with this trivia Corpx 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an endless unmaintainable list of trivia. Anything approaching a complete list of references to one constellation or another would result in a list tens or hundreds of thousands of entries long which would be absolutely worthless in increasing anyone's understanding of constellations. Otto4711 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into individual constellations, while entries are worthy as they demonstrate cultural significance of parent article it is possible to incorporate this into individual articles Guycalledryan 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - yes that's not easy - some of the stuff might be includable in the constellation articles (much as we'd include films, books, and other fiction "set" in places in those places' articles). Some of the content is just inspiration of name: calling some starship after some constellation, to which level of detail (or trivia, in the eyes of detractors) we wouldn't go in earthly places articles. More leeway is probably allowable in constellation articles because, although they have scientific definition and relevance today, as refelcted in our artices, most of their origins were in myth, fiction, or (gulp) the popular culture of long ago. Carlossuarez46 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would support merging if this material was referenced. However, since it is not referenced, it has little value at the moment. It would be better just to start over. Dr. Submillimeter 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dr. Submillimeter wholeheartedly. Vsst 01:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't any sources to verify that all this is true. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article clearly is. I also fail to see how this enhances the Constellations article. (→O - R L Y?) 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content to constellation and delete random trivia. Shyamal 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by user:Evilclown93 (G6). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 37 (North American television frequency)[edit]

This page doesn't mean anything because there are no stations of this kind. Please delete. Georgia guy 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a G6. So tagged. It is put in as a dab page, but it's not actually disambiguating anything. Even then, I question the need, because what I've seen around here on WP is that radio and TV articles aren't categorized by what frequency or channel they broadcast on. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dennis Giggy _U^CP 23:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G6 - superβεεcat 23:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel 37. Problem solved. --Fightingirish 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per irish. Mandsford 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. NSR77 ^T_C 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per above. Get rid of this crap. - Hot Dog Wolf _{_What? ↔ _Felonies} 03:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - As a G6. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harpsichord in popular culture[edit]

This is another article that contains an enormous amount of trivia data which is referenced in any means. Delete per failure of WP:V and it is possibly WP:OR--JForget 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info to Harpsichord Giggy _U^CP 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge into Harpsichord. No reason to delete this one; I get the idea, it's about songs with a harpsichord piece in them. Of course, if the article had been called "Songs with a harpsichord piece in them" that would be deleted also. Harpsichord is rare enough that there aren't that many notable songs where you hear one, nor a need for a pop culture article. Mandsford 00:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think merging it would make the other article too big. This is just trivia and WP is not a trivia collection. Corpx 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this probably comes closest of any of today's nominated IPC articles to having some value, but ultimately it's still a trivia dump. A prose article discussing the rise and fall of the harpsichord as a popular instrument, perhaps something that covers some territory prior to 1950, would no doubt be fascinating. This on the other hand is, to be charitable, not. Otto4711 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is not my cup of tea, but take a look at the talk page - at least one reader really liked it. Why cut off such readers' access? Opus33 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone really likes it is not a valid argument for keeping the article. Otto4711 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Opus33 - or merge - as per Giggy and Mandsford. Yes, it's close to listcruft (not strictly policy), but it seems to have some merit to it, and lots of edits by different editors. Keep the discussion open for a while. Can we cross-list this on proposed mergers? Bearian 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a historical timeline (Category:Timelines). The article doesn't fit Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article doesn't seem to violate any of the clauses in Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded? either. Because the facts that make up the article haven't yet been verified in a reliable source doesn't mean they're not verifiable and the article should be deleted. An editor with a bit of research could verify and cite many of the facts in the timeline. I added dates to many of the entries and found references to a harpsichord for many of the recordings listed just with a Google search. It should be tagged as unsourced and tagged for a rewrite to be more encyclopaedic, but not deleted. dissolve ^talk 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article violates the directory of loosely associated topics clause as it is a list of items with nothing in common with one another beyond the presence of a harpsichord. In some cases, not even that, as the article notes It should be noted that many instances of harpsichord sound in popular culture are not from actual harpsichords, but rather are generated electronically by synthesizers. The examples below have not in general been assessed for what was the actual sound source employed. Otto4711 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there were some examples under the directory of loosely associated topics policy. The policy states: "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". One might consider a list of pop songs written and performed by internationally known people as being famous, and that a timeline shown chronologically does show influence and contribution to a specific subject: the use of harpsichord in popular recordings.dissolve ^talk 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a list of songs with (something that sounds like, but may not be) a harpsichord doesn't tell us anything about either the harpsichord or its use in popular music. Otto4711 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles aims, although far from there yet, do fit in line with being "Useful" in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria: 1. The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria, and: 2. The list is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced. dissolve ^talk 01:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not important that a harpsichord or something that sounds like a harpsichord but isn't was used on a pop song. Otto4711 12:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course importance, i.e. "having relevant and crucial value"[3] is completely relative. For those with an interest in harpsichords and/or pop music it very well may be important. dissolve ^talk 16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete After reading this article and the entirety of this discussion, I was on the fence on this one. However, as Dissolve mentioned, it is a timeline of musicians using the Harpsichord, but I can't seem to see how this improves the Harpsichord article. Additionally, the article itself is unsourced. (→O - R L Y?) 02:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is merely a list of every occasion a harpsichord is used; grouping them together is OR. Why is it special? Punkmorten 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I doubt it's complete and that every use of a harpsichord is included. What aspect of original research do you consider it?

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The only thing I see that it could possibly be is a synthesis of facts, but it hardly builds a particular [case], it's just a list ordered chronologically. dissolve ^talk

Comment: If the result is delete, I would rather the article was transwikied somewhere than simply lost. A lot of work has gone into articles like these. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ rename and improve. Popular is not a permanent adjective. The content currently seems to be treatable within a History of the harpsichord. Shyamal 06:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does history mean documenting every time a musician used the instrument or it was mentioned in a tv show or video game? Corpx 06:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts. Merge anything useful to Harpsichord. The current title and perhaps a good part of the content is definitely unencyclopaedic. Also it is missing citations. I however think, given the activity and interest of some of the editors, that it should have been prodded and given some time before the AfD. Shyamal 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged. —Kurykh 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Tourist Shuttle[edit]

Appears unnotable and unencyclopaedic. Orderinchaos 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong delete Per nom. And I thought the article for Beerenberg Farm was pushing the boundaries of WP:N, but this is beyond a joke. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will not be missed. Mandsford 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's not forget WP:NOTE. NSR77 ^T_C 01:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Surfside Buslines. No reason for it to have a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge Not a famous shuttle or bus line. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent company of Surfside Buslines. Not famous for an article on its own. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 09:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Arnzy. Sensable suggestion. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arnzy. This particular service is not notable, but the company is. Lankiveil 04:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge until someone shows that this particular route in itself meets WP:N or WP:CORP or some other criteria.Ga rr ie 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and has no reliable sources to assert it as such. (→O - R L Y?) 02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arnzy. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - appears unnotable because of lack of work on article - however in current form merge Satu Suro 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request.-Wafulz 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar in popular culture[edit]

Fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTABILITY; completely unmanageable - should include, for starters, every Elvis movie, every rock concert film, etc. Doctormatt 21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, pure WP:TRIVIA. List is woefully incomplete too, and even if it were 10% complete it'd be about a million printed pages long. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculously vague title that leads to precisely the type of content it's got, which is trivia. MSJapan 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deliberately avoid other pop culture AfDs, but this one has no hope. A list of TV shows and films that don't mention a guitar would be shorter. —Xezbeth 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly ridiculous - almost as good as the legendary List of people named John Iain99 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA. Useight 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another trivia list articleJForget 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer Giggy _U^CP 23:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Matt and Ten Pound. Hmmm... the playing of a guitar in a movie or a song, what a novel idea. Mandsford 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Nah, I take that back--a guitar in a movie is so duh-huh that you might--and let me emphasize, MIGHT--nuke this as a G1 or G3. In any case, I think it's snowing outside.Blueboy 96 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as loosely associated items. Punkmorten 07:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Huntsville bus accident[edit]

Non-notable car accident. Wikipedia is not a news source, and Notability is not temporary. Unless a reasonable claim of notability can be added, this fails for inclusion at List of road accidents, and thus for Wikipedia.

Delete as nominator. Circeus 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unfortunate event, but untimately little different than gazillions of other road accidents. The four fatalities does make this a closer call, but there are (unfortunately) many accidents of that magnitude. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Possibly move content to WikiNews Iain99 22:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Can't be done due to (oddly enough) conflicting licenses. Circeus 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per some of Guycalledryan's comments below. I don't think that breadth of coverage can establish notability as it's still transient, but the change in seatbelt policy does give it a claim to long term relevance per WP:NOTNEWS criterion 2. Iain99 09:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEak Delete there have been numerous worst bus accidents in the past and I'm sure lots of deadly accidents in China and India for exemple that have like 15-20 or more deaths have no articles.--JForget 22:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn. Oliver Keenan 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Bus accidents are sad, pedestrian accidents are sad, motorcycle accidents are sad, no need for an article about every single one, however. JForget is right. There are lots of bus accidents in the Third World that usually end up as a filler in the New York Times under the headline, "Bus Plunge Kills ____" (number between 1 and 200). Mandsford 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, multiple news stories from non-trivial national sources demonstrate notability of this within both community and USA, [4][5][6][7]. Ongoing investigation was covered [8] and appeared to have significant ongoing impact, including calls for better seat belts on buses from a variety of organisations [9][10]. Sure this may not have the death toll of some worse disasters but it is definitely notable within both its local community and the country as a whole and has had an ongoing impact within the state Guycalledryan 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any bus accident typically gets a mention in national news. Does not change the fact that newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just a mention, it was widespread and extensive coverage, and it had an ongoing impact within the state. With fear of breaching WP:WAX, articles such as the 2007 Melbourne CBD shootings demonstrate that that a newsworthy subject can become notable if it is widely reported to a large population, this is what happened with the accident, and in addition it has had influence after its occurrance. Notability is the perception of those to whom it is notable, and if a incident is widely reported to the population to the point of having a profound impact on politics it is notable for inclusion, even if it doesn't have the death toll of other disasters. Guycalledryan 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Melbourne article is irrelevant. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'd love to see it sourced and included in the article before I reconsider my vote. The article, as it currently stands, fails to make any assertion of notability. Resolute 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that because the Melbourne article exists this one should, instead I'm using the Melbourne article to demonstrate that notability doesn't rely on the number of people killed but instead on public perception. The fact that this event was extensively covered on the news establishes its notability above other events which may have claimed more lives, both locally (and this having a continuing impact within the town and state) and nationally. I have sourced my claims, and if I get time I'll add it to the article. Guycalledryan 05:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Guycalledryan. Chubbles 04:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Iain99 noting that it led to at least a pilot program requiring seat belts on school busses, a slight societal effect. This satisfies criterion 2 of the essay WP:NOTNEWS which reflects the views of a number of editors, but is not a guideline. The number of injuries, and the number of deaths (4 out of the (edit) 40000 or so motor vehicle deaths a year in the US) and the pro forma coverage in news media of a school bus accident, would not otherwise satisfy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guycalledryan. Also, a recent (11 July 2007) AP story on school bus safety referenced it [11]. Lkseitz 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originally on the fence on this one, but after reading the article and poring over the sources cited, this is noteworthy because it might prompt Alabama officials to impose seat belts on school buses. (→O - R L Y?) 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guycalledryan. Geuiwogbil 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scientism. John254 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific fundamentalism[edit]

Completely POV original research. "Scientific fundamentalism" is only used as a pejorative term by those who wish to erroneously equate science with religious movements. Groupthink 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There's room for a balanced article on the use of this term, but this isn't it, or even the beginnings of it. I'd edit it to remove the POV, but that would mean blanking the page. Iain99 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Added: better still to redirect to scientism per Leinad-Z below. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Iain99. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Iain99 says it all here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Drivel. Nick mallory 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Iain99 - superβεεcat 23:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I agree the present article is inherently PoV and would be hard to fix, it appears to be a valid topic. Is it worth retaining a stub and pointing the History of Science WikiProject people at it? Does anyone have access to the Nature article linked, even just to extract a proper citation? Espresso Addict 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered stubifying it, but the way I'd have done it would just have left a dicdef as I don't have the knowledge to write much more, and tbh my patience for reading creationist sites is too limited to do the research myself. But if anyone else would like to rewrite it in the next few days then I'll say keep. However, the article has been up for a year - if nobody improves it soon it would be better to delete and let a future editor start from scratch. ~~I'll look at the Nature article from work later - if there's enough in it for a valid stub I might change my mind~~Iain99 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Added The Nature reference (Philip Clayton, Nature 409, 979-980 (22 February 2001) | doi:10.1038/35059152) is a review of "In search of unity" by Mary Midgley. It doesn't contain the phrase "scientific fundamentalism" so it's not a good place to start. Iain99 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this can be expanded, referenced and made a hell of a lot more interesting, it can't be saved. This is little more than a dictionary definition and a link to a website. Mandsford 01:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What substitute are systematic research methods and firsthand empirical data for superstition and ignorance? ~ Infrangible 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has way too many problems as evident by the numerous tags.--Sefringle^Talk 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt POV fork, possible WP:SOAP violation. Suggest salting as well--the title essentially SAYS it's POV. Blueboy96 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's keep salting for if the article gets recreated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least one tenured academic has used the term in the title of a book so there may be potential for a proper article. No need to salt unless it gets recreated in something like its current form. Iain99 20:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iain. No salt per Dennis --omtay 38 20:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per nom, Iain99, Blueboy96, and Dennisthe2. Bullocks, Bullshit. Bearian 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Further) comment. I'm rather disturbed by the 'delete and salt' comments here. Scientific fundamentalism is, as far as I'm aware, a recognised critique of the scientific method and, in particular, the application of scientific judgements to real world decision making. As a scientist, I don't agree with much of what its adherents say, but that doesn't make it invalid. It might be difficult to create a neutral poV article, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting. Espresso Addict 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not calling for salting here, just deletion... but "recognised" by whom? I'm not denying that the scientific method has been critiqued, but who frames said critiques as "scientific fundamentalism"? I appreciate the cite that Iain99 came up with, but that's one citation of an article by an English professor in an obscure journal. I'd like more, please. Groupthink 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I admit I'd never heard this precise term before, but I have often come across the critique it appears to represent. A quick Google search on this/very similar terms, turns up for example, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (this and other similar sites state that the 'Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism' they quote originate in The Wall Street Journal, 1993), [18] (quotes a piece by Bryan Appleyard in New Scientist, possibly [19]). Espresso Addict 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those first few cites smack of POV phrase-mongering: much as I'd love to use the term "anti-choice" here on WP, in deference to neutrality I employ "pro-life". However, there might be something of substance in those last few refs, but is there really enough to support a whole article, especially given that "scientific fundamentalism" appears to be a neologism? Can it really be argued that there's a formal scientific fundamentalist movement or belief system? I'd push for a redirect ~~to something like naturalistic fallacy or science wars instead~~. Groupthink 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete amateur in this area, but on a quick scan neither article seems to encompass the precise scientific fundamentalist critique, though it could perhaps be added to the science wars article. The 1993 date of the The Wall Street Journal reference, if correct, would tend to suggest it isn't a neologism. Espresso Addict 01:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 85 hits on Google Scholar Not as many as I expected (and I was even more surprised that there were only 619 on Google proper), but Google is not the sole arbiter of notability and there might be enough there for someone to write an article. I'm not going to do it myself, partly because I don't have easy access to most of the journals, partly because reading things with "postmodernism" in the title is bad for my blood pressure and partly because I think the term is pretty silly and wouldn't know where to start writing an article which took it seriously. But that's just my opinion - if someone with access to a university library disagrees and thinks they can manage it I don't think we should stop them trying. Iain99 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there's enough there to write a brief article, but I too have neither the expertise nor the access to an appropriate library. I'll pop a note to the History of Science WikiProject; someone there might perhaps be interested. Espresso Addict 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most previous comments. Rjm at sleepers 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "scientism". Common current usages of scientism seem similar enough to the topic discussed in the article. If someday one can write a meaningful page about the term "Scientific fundamentalism" alone, then it can cease to be a redirect. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Redirect to scientism. Groupthink 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. I agree with Leinad, have changed recommendation accordingly. Iain99 14:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another me too, for a redirect to scientism. Espresso Addict 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. If no one objects, at this time tomorrow I will withdraw my AfD nom and redirect this page to scientism. Groupthink 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an objection, merely a question. What will happen to the current contents of the page? Shouldn't the content of Scientism be modified before redirection, otherwise it's simply a back door deletion. Rjm at sleepers 07:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary: Unlike with a deletion, the contents of this page will remain in page history. Plus, I'll post the page contents to Talk:Scientism with a note that scientific fundamentalism has been redirected there. Groupthink 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding a sentence to the introduction of scientism along the lines of "The term scientific fundamentalism has also been used to refer to similar concepts". The "recent examples" could then be incorporated into the scientism article if someone can find sources showing that these things have actually been notably described as scientific fundamentalism. The term seems to be less widely used than I thought, I don't think it's certain that they will have been. Iain99 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with adding the sentence. If we've come to consensus on the deletion + redirect, the discussion on the details should probably be moved to the talk page of scientism. The list of links that have been dug up here should probably be copied there. Espresso Addict 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan in popular culture[edit]

Yet another cluttered, crufty and trivial popular culture article. One example from the article: Punk band No Fun At All's song "My Extraordinary Mind" contains the lyrics "Sunday afternoon, I was bending every spoon/Stopping all the clocks in Saskatoon." I see no importance in that at all. The province being mentioned in numerous songs and all that isn't notable. As I've stated before (and others have too): put the notable ones in the article and leave it at that. Don't branch it off to a massive list that is out of control. RobJ1981 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little to no encyclopedic content. I agree with the nominator, a prose section in the main Saskatchewan article can include some of the notable examples, but a separate article is not needed. The picture at the top says it all, the fact that the word Saskatchewan is used on a Scrabble board in a movie is completely meaningless. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing more than fan cruft. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is cruft. Nothing but primarily pointless cruft. As suggested take the notable trivia and place it appropriately. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no WP:RSes that Saskatechewan in popular culture is a notable phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, some random mentions in movies and TV shows is not what "culture" is. If any of this is notable, and I don't think it is, it can go in the main article. --Charlene 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if I'm Canadian, this article is another classic example of listcruft trivia with little references.--JForget 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete load of crap. Per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up irrelevant items. Was written with content removed from the Saskatchewan article (is a sub-article), keeps trivial info out of the main article. --Qyd 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this info is trivial but we shouldn't have a separate article to act as fly paper to keep the trivia out of the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another collection of loosely associated items. If it doesn't belong in the main article it doesn't belong in its own garbage spin-off article. Better here than there is no reason for creating or keeping an article full of trivia. Otto4711 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if contents of article is a bit Non notable there needs to be an article about Sask in popular culture, it's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article, and I think this article warrants no more than cleanup.JoeyETS 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article," in other words, better here than there. If the only reason for having an article is because not having it would clutter the main article, then there shouldn't be an article. The solution to trivial crap in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off into a separate crap articl and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and should have mostly serious, important articles. But here is a case of, we have a serious article, Saskatchewan, and then we have a sub-article, that supplements it in a light, fun way. It's a separate article and people who aren't interested in that aspect of the topic don't have to click on the link to the sub-article; those who are interested can. I don't see any harm in that. Perhaps it could use a bit of trimming down, but I think that's all it needs.Moisejp 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precident. Nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft, subjective, unmaintainable. Blueboy 96 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to avoid, for which the example: "Delete as cruft" is given: "The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted." Also, in Wikipedia:Fancruft it says that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." That makes invalid all of your arguments such as "Delete. It is cruft." and "Delete load of crap." and any argument saying that it is nothing more than trivia.Moisejp 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most "X in popular culture" articles, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information and completely unencyclopaedic. Books and films about Saskatchewan should be discussed in the main article - I count about six, before pruning for notability, so they wouldn't clutter it. Books and films which contain a one line mention of Saskatchewan should be listed on another website, if anywhere. Iain99 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Keep it because it keeps trivia out of the main article" is a terrible reason for keeping this article. The reason we seek to eliminate trivia sections is because typically the information does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in the first place. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and certainly isn't an indiscriminate collection of what effectively amounts to keyword search results. Skeezix1000 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, perhaps, merge the few notable mentions back into Saskatchewan --omtay 38 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article breaks the principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the lyrics and lines from comedy sketches, movies and cartoons. PKT 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion, but merge back some useful content as per Omtay38. With all due respect, I think most cases of listcruft are fairly obvious -- like porn, you know it when you see it. A few cases are difficult ones, because (a) they are not obvious, (b) they have more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references. This article has a single source and not much else except a long list of cross-references by wikilinks. Bearian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Woah that scrabble picture is HUGE...but I can just make out the man's words..."After precise examination, we've found zero evidence of notability"....If your province's mention in pop culture is so background that you have to magnify it and ask people to look back there and around the corner to see it...all you've got is a list of trivia. Can someone save this for the Wikipedia:Handy guide to grading in popular culture articles? Canuckle 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Saskatchewan should certainly include significant aspects of its representation in popular culture, such as Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie, but Wikipedia absolutely doesn't need a list of every individual time the name "Saskatoon" popped up in a song lyric or a David Letterman Top 10 list. We don't need it in Saskatchewan's article, and we don't need it in a forked list, either. Delete. And start pruning and/or killing all "X in popular culture" articles, too. Bearcat 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' or delete all wikipdia in popular culture articles.... In comparison to other articles at In popular culture articles, Saskatchewan in popular culture is as good, the same or better. Would the format be better if it was modified the appearance and styling of Wikipedia in culture? If the article can be cleaned up according to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and the description of fictional places as objects of the narrative I believe it should be kept. Keep... if an increase is shown in the amount of references of the author's intention as well as stating the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world. Work on this article in this regard has commenced. Please advise if direction taken is improving. As a personal Saskatchewanian I take offence that a province of 588,276.09 square kilometres (227,134.67 sq mi) and population of 968,157 is not considered notable and is misspelled from some deletionists, and is considered trivia as mentioned above. Pop culture influence society and its institutions in various ways. Culture refers to the real world and its patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance as pertaining to the province of Saskatchewan. I have emailed No fun at all to find out what the reference was to stopping at the eateries in our slow paced relaxed city of Saskatoon, and making time stand still on a Thursday afternoon. I will publish the answer when they reply. SriMesh | talk 05:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Erm... nobody's saying that Saskatchewan isn't notable - just that an obsessively compiled list of every random mention of Saskatchewan in "popular culture" (whatever that is - as opposed to unpopular culture perhaps?) isn't notable. The same would be true of any state, province or country. As it stands this article tells the reader nothing useful whatsoever about Saskatchewan, except perhaps that it's occasionally used by songwriters in need of a rhyme, and even that's my interpretation, not something stated in the text. As with most of these things, there is room for a properly sourced article or section which uses significant works about Saskatchewan to demonstrate how it is perceived in culture - which aspects of it are most frequently depicted and have any of its people or places become iconic - and are Saskatchewanians generally happy with the way their province is viewed by the outside world, or have there been efforts to improve it? If you think you can write it I'll have no objections. Incidentally, I'm increasingly in favour of killing all "X in popular culture" articles and sections, as the term seems to be taken as a license to compile obsessive trivia. The few salvageable ones which attempt to tell the reader something useful about their subject should be renamed "Cultural influence of X" or "Cultural depictions of X" as happened with the Joan of Arc one. Iain99 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know I already made my comments, but I would just like to note that according to listcruft the removal of listcruft is not official wikipedia policy, but merely an opinion of some. JoeyETS 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive abortion[edit]

A combination of Original research, soap-boxery, and neologism that is a fairly obvious POV-fork. Throw in bad-writing, tendentious argument, and other vices too many too mention, and this article really doesn't belong. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Bucketsofg 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I stubbed the article to remove some of the unacceptable, unsourced and libelous content. Currently it is no more than a dicdef. Since it is a real term I am not sure it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:DICT. Should go in the Wiktionary. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should go in the Urban Dictionary perhaps, but as an unnotable non-universal term, has no place in either WP or WK. Groupthink 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. It's a common enough phrase, but it's a dicdef. The definition given doesn't even match what "retroactive abortion" means - it's usually applied towards adults, whether just annoying or truly criminal. I have never once heard it used in relation to a child, not once, ever. --Charlene 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor quality dicdef, unless some evidence is produced that something could be made of this. Oliver Keenan 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oliver has this one right, this one isn't even well written. Maybe submit to Wiktionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G3) and salt Obviously unencyclopedic, thus fitting the definition of pure vandalism. Should be salted as well. Blueboy96 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second such !vote from you I've seen. Are you trying to prove a WP:POINT? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but no salt. This term could be wiki-linked to later in it's life from things other than the AfD and might deserve a redirect or something then (perhaps to abortion). --omtay 38 19:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, WP:HOAX, and above discussions. Bearian 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Jones in popular culture[edit]

Very trivial. A note of mentions isn't that notable. This seems to be another case of "it got to be too big for the regular article, so let's move it here so we can just clutter and list as much as we can". Frankly, I'm starting to think a policy on Wikipedia needs to be in place, so these articles stop popping up all the time. Category:In popular culture shows how bad this has gotten. 13 subcats, 129 pages in the category itself. While I'm sure some are decent and well written (not just a crufty list of trivia), I would imagine the majority is horrible. RobJ1981 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - loosely associated collection of items. "Spot the reference" pop culture articles tell us nothing about the subject of the reference, the fiction from which the reference is drawn or the real world. I strongly agree with the notion of developing policy or explicitly stating somewhere in WP:NOT that these sort of trivia-traps need to go. Otto4711 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. I also agree that a new policy needs to be in place for WP:CRUFT. These things have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very crufty. Also per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no WP:RSes that Casey Jones in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and these things have to go. Also what has to go is the idea that "popular culture" means "random trivial mentions in TV shows and movies popular with 14-25 year old American males". Andy Warhol is pop culture; a random mention on Family Guy is just a random mention on Family Guy. --Charlene 21:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same argument as mentionned in the Saskatchewan in popular culture afd.--JForget 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it were not for the references to Casey Jones in song and story, he would only have been another train engineer who died in an accident. Song and story ("popular culture") is what has made the person notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Talk:Casey Jones. Casey Jones is a figure of folklore, and it is characteristic of folklore that it is reproduced with variations. The information collected here should be preserved for the use of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Casey Jones. Google books and Google scholar show folklore journal articles anout the place of Casey Jones in popular culture published back in the 1940's, and there are dozens of scholarly sources which can be used to write an excellent article. Casey Jones is one more non-notable railroad fatality except for his place in popular culture. In the early 20th century railroad workers died at an appalling rate. In the Chicago switchyards alone, there were several deaths a month. Casey Jones was not a notable railroader before his death. After his death, a popular ballad was written and was recorder by many country western and folk musicians. A TV series was made about him. A Disney feature cartoon was made about him. A separate, but similar blues tune called "J.C. Holmes" was recorded by Bessie Smith which retels his story. A different tune about him was recorded by the Grateful Dead. An obscene ballad starting "Casey Jones was a son of a bitch, drove his train into a forty foot ditch" was featured as a marching chant in the movie "An officer and a gentleman" and is on a CD of "Rude Rugby Songs". Casey Jones is extremely notable, with hundreds of published articles, and he is notable solely because of his place in popular culture. Deleting this material outright would leave a brief bio article about him, which does not in any way show why he is notable. Per Smerdis, at least move this to the Casey Jones. There is nothing "loosely associated" or indiscriminate or unreferenced about 100 years of popular ballads, TV shows, US postage stamps, songs, cartoons and movies about the tragic end of John Luther "Casey" Jones. Edison 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to Casey Jones --omtay 38 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Casey Jones has been a notable figure in American folklore for 107 years. In April 1932, "Erie Railroad Magazine, vol 28, no. 2, p12 said the Casey Jones song was known in translations into French, German, and the language of South African railway workers. It noted several "wierd and often unprintable variations (as mentioned above) composed by doughboys in France in during the world war (WW1)". This was reprinted in "A treasury of American Folklore," by B. A. Botkin, (American Legacy Press, NT, 1944) pp 241-246) with other material about the Jones legend. In pp 178-180 Botkin groups Jones with John Henry (folklore), Paul Bunyan, and Pecos Bill as "American legendary heroes" who were "occupational heroes". John Henry dies in a spike driving contest with a steam hammer, "Casey Jones in a train wreck with one hand on the whistle cord and the other on the airbrake lever." This legendary status is certainly " in popular culture" as opposed to being part of a human being's historic biography. He was a railroad worker, but in popular culture after his death he became much more. The TV show by itself is notable, the song(s) are notable (by virtue of numerous scholarly articles) and do not deserve either deletion or burial in "to a subpage of Talk:Casey Jones" as Smerdis suggested. It is better to concentrate the several notable songs and TV/cartoon depictions in one article. If there is a strong feeling against articles containing the forbidden words "in popular culture" then the best way to do this would be by a merge to the article about his biography. Example of how to do this are Johnny Appleseed , Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett , earlier actual persons who became legends, and none of whom appear to have separate "popular culture" articles. Edison 01:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't merge it was split out of Casey Jones because the list was too long for the subject, a biography. I have no strong opinion on whether this article stays or goes, but I definitely do not want it put back into the biography. However, this should be kept following the comments in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles to avoid the information going back into the biography, getting split out again and getting nominated here again to repeat the cycle. Slambo (Speak) 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and merge per Edison's suggestion above. The main article mentions Casey is the subject of popular ballad but then contains no information about the ballad itself. — WiseKwai 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... I agree that trimming some of the more obscure, less relevant references is probably a good idea. For example, I can see several entries on the "In Music" part that could probably go without detracting from the overall relevance of the article. The postage stamp reference should be in the main article and the Railroad Tycoon II reference could go. Other than that, the rest of the information is relevant and should stay because it shows that he has remained a notable and memorable figure in the public mind, even 100+ years after his death.--Gabeb83 08:10, 19 July 2007 (PST)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gavino[edit]

Extremely minimal notability. Involved with films with minimal distribution, one won an award of minimum profile. No sources that I could find have text about him, except ones that are apparently self-posted. (Also, article is borderline copyvio). The "Golden Bone" award turns out to be an award within a particular small film festival, given out in many categories: it really doesn't carry much weight. Mango juice^talk 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a violation of WP:COI. -- Hot Dog Wolf -- Bark! 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO, and from the way it is written, it appear as if it fails WP:COI. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seams notable to me.Callelinea 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --omtay 38 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be at least a small claim to notability. He did go to a good film school and he does have a body of work. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it rises to the level of keep but someone .may want to look at the work more closely. .Commercial success may not be the measurement tool in this instance. --Stormbay 03:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was to look and see if I could find any WP:RS reliable sources that discuss him and I couldn't. There were a couple of self-posted profiles out there, including one on IMDB, but nothing clearly independent and reliable. Mango juice^talk 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources are not independent but there are many articles that use only IMDB as a source and they are not challenged. Self posted (or produced by a sympathetic party), undoubtedly; fabricated, not likely. It is not as easy to attain a level of recognition that clearly says notability if the direction is not a commercial one but it may still be there. --Stormbay 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but based on my search, there are no sources at all that we can use, so we can't have an article. But maybe there's one you can find that I couldn't? Mango juice^talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These same arguments were raised in February and successfully refuted. We must not confuse popularity and money with artistic achievement. The achievement makes the person worthy of inclusion. It may seem foreign to some, but there are some filmmakers out there who are not interested in distribution or web buzz. They create art for art’s sake. They create experimental films, shorts, and multi-media projects that are created for the art of filmmaking or to make some point not to earn money. The highest achievement in art for art’s sake filmmaking is recognition from their peers such as winning a film festival award. The person who accomplishes this is just a worthy for mention as the horror or teen sex comedy filmmaker who achieves distribution, web buzz, and earns significant financial return. Those arguing for exclusion assert that because awards are given out in different categories that this somehow diminishes the accomplishment. This argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of artistic awards, commercial or non-commercial, are given out in different categories. For example, you would not argue that someone who won best supporting actress is not deserving of inclusion because awards were given out in many categories. The achievement is being recognized as the best in that category. Those arguing for exclusion also bring up the canard of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism. This argument is without merit. The article is scrupulously referenced. Every statement is credited to the source. It conforms to the highest level of scholarship. Once again, I point out that the arguments for exclusion were made before and denied. I hope Wikipedia takes this into consideration, and we don’t have to constantly fight this battle between art for art’s sake filmmaking and the monied interest. Temporaryriches 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC) — Temporaryriches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Refactored. Note: in February, a prod tag was removed by the author; this vague defense was brought up but there wasn't a debate at the time. Mango juice^talk 05:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree that the argument is vague. It is quite direct and to the point. The highest honor in the art for art's sake is peer recognition (awards). People who achieve a high honor in their field deserve recognition. I believed the award is proved by the webpage of the film festival itself. Whether or not the person has a big web presence or has done commercial projects does not diminish the achievement. The achievment in and of itself deserve recognition. Temporaryriches 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have said philosophical. Yes, good for him! I'm sure he deserves the award and I don't doubt that he won it (nor that the web page of the festival is good enough proof). However, my interpretation is that this is a minor film festival, and an award there is not enough to confer notability and this seems to be confirmed by the fact that no one seems to have written anything about him in reliable sources. Put another way, I don't intend to say anything negative about him as an artist, just that a Wikipedia article is not an appropriate way to honor him. Mango juice^talk 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have watched this discussion with interest (and commented above) and done some research. The IMDB entry is often the only source cited in many articles. Most of the articles concerning music and film use nothing but promotional and client friendly sources, and very few in that category. In this case, we can accept that a body of work, spanning a period of time, exists. There appears to be sufficient material to accredit his body of work and allow that recognition in the form of a Wikipedia article. --Stormbay 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remington Norman[edit]

I flagged this article as an autobiography 2 weeks ago, and no attempt to counteract the problems of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, or establish notability/references from third party sources have been made. Eliz81 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn per User:Agne27's excellent rewrite. All issues taised have been addressed. Eliz81 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most definitely seems like an autobiography. I would go for a WP:NPOV rewrite as he does seem to have some google fame, but since it does seem to be written by the creator, it might be better of deleting and waiting for somebody else to start fresh. Keep per Agne's wonderful rewrite. --omtay 38 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, his two books do seem to have some notability in wine circles. Pull out the peacock words like "elite" and scrap the trivial stuff like being the guest of honor at wine tastings (perhaps verifiable but so what?). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Very notable in wine tasting world, article may need a little cleanup so that it sounds more neutral, but its ok as it is. Callelinea 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable wine writers and one of the foremost experts in Burgundy and Rhone wines. I have done a significant rewrite of the article to remove the autobiographical tones and POV violations. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for taking the time to clean up the article. It looks much better in its current form, and really addresses the autobiographical concerns. Eliz81 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Richard 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical people[edit]

Random collection. No way to define any meaningful inclusion or exclusion criteria. --Latebird 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the start of a list of some sort - but frankly, it'd get far too bulky to do anything with, very fast. Delete - I think we probably have a category for this anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would become overwhelmed far to quickly. --omtay 38 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too broad of a term, with no relation of where they were from and what their accomplishments were. Violation of WP:NOT#DIR. -- Hot Dog Wolf -- Bark! 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This would be far too broad a list if kept -- no inclusion criteria, etc. etc. Funny, we've had a fox, a wolf, and now an otter vote on this... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you insult the notability of the wild omtay. It is closly related to the badger, only has transparent fur. Heck, it's even on the endangered species list. :-) --omtay 38 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To massive a subject to be placed in one article. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, massively indiscriminate list. (And I defend lists when I can.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the most impossible to maintain lists ever. —Xezbeth 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely useless, categories (likely tons of sub-cats) may be more appropriate then this "gem".--JForget 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everyone is "historical". --Charlene 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forgive me but LOL, that would be one long article.Merkinsmum 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps the originator of the article meant Hysterical People? -- Ssilvers 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maudine Ormsby[edit]

My prod, which I did in part because I thought this might be a hoax, was deleted because the person says it isn't a hoax. Well, fine. I still think it is not wiki worthy for a stand alone article. The fact that no OSU page links to it, IMHO, is testimony to that. Either incorporate into an appropriate OSU page and then delete or merge out right as nn. Postcard Cathy 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Interesting fact. Reasonably sourced (newspaper article from OSU paper) for a stub. Legitimate bit of notability--at least locally. I can see adding it into an appropriate OSU page but I can't think of an example (Does OSU have a page dedicated to homecomings?). Thus, a stand alone article makes the most sense. CraigMonroe 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSU probably doesn't have a page dedicated to homecomings (and it shouldn't!) but you can create a subsection on the main page. Another option is to put it somewhere if there is a general page on OSU sports since, in my experience, homecomings are associated with (usually) football games. Postcard Cathy

Comment I don't think that is the best option. Having this on the main OSU page is absurd, and would be at best a trivial inclusion. As for the OSU football/athletics pages, the link is tangential at best. It would be different if there was an OSU homecoming page. It seems to me, the subject meets WP:N at least locally (which is all that is needed), and WP:V.CraigMonroe 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something very illogical about your comment. If it is too trivial to put on the main OSU page, then why is not trivial when it comes to having it's own page? You can't be trivial in one aspect and not trivial in another, at least in this respect. Postcard Cathy

Comment No, it would be trivial because it would have to be placed in a trivia section to be placed on a seperate page. If not, where would you place it? There is no section on homecoming. As for being trivial on its own page, it is not. There are sources that deal directly with the topic, in a non-trivial manner. In fact, if you really wanted to do some research, I am sure you can go back and see several articles on the topic at the time it occured--which was well before the news was put on the web. These issues all point to it meeting WP:N and WP:V which equates to this AFD nom being improper. I really don't see the issue here. CraigMonroe 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not enthusiastic about the animal, notoriety seems trivial, but three Google Books have results. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google searches show some notability, which is astounding for a cow from 1926. How many non-trivial references are there in articles not available online? Also, notability does not mean online notability, or popularity with people living in 2007. --Charlene 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The more interesting cows Wikipedia has the better. Nick mallory 23:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cow fetishest you! :)

Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to respond to Nick mallory: WP already has an interesting cow at Sherwood v. Walker. Maybe merge back into the university's article? Bearian 22:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

) The cow is irrelevant as it is just a vehicle to the legal issue at hand. Postcard Cathy

Comment I think he was making a joke. There is no need to take this all so seriously. CraigMonroe 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

Mmm... crufty. No giant press attention (as the article even states!), not anything to the extent of the Hot Coffee Mod, and could certainly be merged into the main article. Really, all it needs is three lines in the main article. David Fuchs 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Mmm...WP:POINTy. Multiple, substantial sources, if you'd care to peruse the reference section. Geuiwogbil 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I violating WP:POINT? Someone in the other AfD brought up this article. I am not actively trolling to delete Oblivion articles. David Fuchs 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it just seemed like you jumped on that suggestion so quickly. You gave me a mild headache. You might not have been disrupting Wikipedia, but you were certainly disrupting me. Geuiwogbil 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your failure to assume good faith gave me a nosebleed, so lets keep it relevent to the nomination shall we? DarkSaber2k 10:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The detail that someone has gone into documenting what should be little more than a footnote to Oblivion is staggering. I do not make the recommendation to delete such a massive amount of (good) work lightly. I'm likely going to end up in the minority voice here as with the AfD on the game's development history (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) as there really isn't a specific policy proscribing it but I feel that this level of hyperintimate detail to a relatively minor facet of the overall topic of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is just not appropriate to a general-knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The best thing I could cite is the first of WP:FIVE. This stuff just is not encyclopedia material. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to comply with WP:NOT#PAPER, though, which is policy, rather than vague rumination with no grounding in Wiki regulations. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Geuiwogbil 20:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have no problems with the number of articles or the length thereof, it's more just a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia or not. Admittedly my argument isn't well rooted in policy so it's a bit on the weak side, I just felt a need to express it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have a philosophical notion of what belongs in an encyclopedia: everything. A beautiful compilation of all the works of Man and God, arranged by topic, refined to perfection in endless detail, and elucidated with elegance, humility, and charm. A "syntopicon", if you will, of the universe without and the universe within. I suppose that might make me a little bit of an idealist, but where would the world be without a healthy dose of idealism? WP:UNENCYC is meaningless as an argument. Geuiwogbil 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems this article was created as a branch from The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to clean up the article. My original instinct was to merge, but because it has already been separated, I'll go with keep. --omtay 38 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Branching a big article off to smaller ones is sometimes a good idea, but in this case it isn't. Condense, don't just branch out to many articles. It's crufty, trivial and so on. You can source many things, it doesn't make it notable as a branched off article. RobJ1981 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with your words, traveler. You say many things that sound like typical deletion arguments, but do not, in fact, hold true to this case. The meaning of words in the general sense is not the meaning which they hold in policy discussions. "Notable", for example, does not mean "Worthy of note". It means having "Significant reliable coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject". Now, I believe that the sources from GameSpot, Gamasutra, and The Escapist offer significant coverage, enough to provide a detailed outline of the subject; are independent of the ESRB's rating procedures; and are quite reliable. (Which is another tangled subject altogether but one which, I assure you, if delved into, would end with a singular confirmation of reliability.) Similarly, "trivial" in the sense of WP:TRIVIA does not mean "avoid facts which a general consensus of Wiki editors feels are unimportant", (We have no guide for that, we follow reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT holds no water as an argument.) it refers to our guideline which states "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic." It makes no judgment as to the validity of the facts themselves. I do not even need to discuss "cruft", since "WP:CRUFT" is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and a rather contentious one at that. Geuiwogbil 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. Brevity is wit. The subject is good, though too many words are used to describe it. --User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Re-voted with more arguments below. As the votes don't matter, but the arguments do, I am striking out this one. --User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm really not a fan of the "it's too long/detailed" argument. —Xezbeth 21:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Omtay38. It is sourced properly as well. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really trivial news item. Anything of relevance can be merged back into the main article. This literally takes 2 lines to explain. Anything else is minutiae. - hahnch e n 22:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant argument can be found in the above comment. What, is it WP:JNN? Geuiwogbil 08:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not looking hard enough. - hahnch e n 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, I can't discern what technical argument you're using. "Minutiae"? "Trivia"? I'm not aware of any policy which gives a definition for such potentially loaded terms. No need to be calling responses "idiot" [sic]. Geuiwogbil 00:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stare at this and say delete it. I read it and I say keep it. I didn't think I could admit an article about topless women and excessive violence could be encyclopedic and informative, but I confess it is. The sources are there, the prose is there, I just can't find a reason to delete it. I'm torn, and not in "Teen" kind of way, but I'll stand with a good consciousness as a keep vote.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikipedia isn't paper and "cruft" is not a deletion argument. The article cites its reliable sources, meets our notability guidelines and our inclusion policies, so it's clearly a keeper. You guys don't think anybody would ever want to research video game ratings or hidden-adult-content-unlocking mods? — brighterorange (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple sources, definitely seems to be notable in the gaming industry Guycalledryan 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively long article about a topic that already is covered in the main article. Resolute 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Excessively long"? "Already covered in the main article"? This is what WP:PAPER and WP:SS warned against. Geuiwogbil 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:RECENT? The main article covers the topic sufficiently, and there is plenty of room to add a little more, if you like, without unbalancing it, or making it too much larger. This article itself asserts multiple times that the changes hardly garnered notice from the public or gaming journalists Resolute 13:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy, not a guideline. As a sidenote, the essay states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are", which seemed interesting enough to me. Geuiwogbil 13:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I am not proposing the deletion of the information, as it is already covered in the main article. Resolute 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's just "excessively long"? That just...baffles me. Geuiwogbil 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because this is finely written should not be a reason to keep. Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, which says "something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article". Corpx 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can any of the keep voters justify how this is not a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS ? The article itself says "events passed by with little outward concern from the either the public at large or gaming journalists in particular." The only outcomes of this incident, per the article, was that two publicity seeking individuals used it for their gain (and somebody wrote about it in their blog). Just because an article is well written does not mean it should get a free pass if its in violation of policy. Corpx 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reflection of the continuing crisis in video game violence as perceived by the public; it's a tangential effect of the Hot Coffee Mod, involving the same organization, the same publicity-seeking individuals, the same corporation publishing the game. It is one of only three games the ESRB has ever decided to re-rate. It reflects on ESRB policy towards third-party mods, bound to be of increasing relevance in an age dominated by user content. This isn't some cat stuck in a tree or white girl kidnapped in the Bahamas; it's an industry-wide issue. WP:NOT#NEWS, in any case, seems to be something drummed up to make sure our WP:BLP standards stick, more than anything else; those things it specifically cautions against, this article does not do; the only area where you seem to have some type of argument is "long-term historical notability", which seems to be a criterion anyone can read anything into. Geuiwogbil 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for "reflection" on any social issue. If anything, this should be mentioned as part of something ilke "Perception of video games", but I'm not sure if that can be written without any WP:OR, while maintaining WP:NPOV. I would characterize this re-rating incident as something that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would show up to protest. (Examples). Corpx 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, Corpx, I wasn't saying that material should be in the article. Notability isn't something which needs to be put down point for point in the article, it's a property of the article that's made manifest by analysis. We let our readers decide what these events mean, over and beyond reporting on what others have thought of them. To Jack Thompson, this is but one further example of the failures of the ESRB. Thompson even goes so far as to state that this event is an "even worse disaster than last year's' [sic] "Hot Coffee" scandal". To John Romero, this is one step on the way to a content-protected future. That's the notability. I can't make you see the notability. I can only tell you what others think the notability of these events are. Geuiwogbil 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not arguing the notability. I'm arguing that this is "something has been in the news for a brief period of time". Corpx 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That criterion states that being in the news for a brief period of time doesn't make something notable. It says nothing in the direction of "if something has been in the news for only a brief period of time, it's non-notable." Zenke's article on the issue, in any case, came one full year after the events themselves. We "properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events", whatever that's supposed to mean. If something has "long-term historical notability" despite being covered only briefly, then it should be kept. If you aren't arguing the notability, you aren't arguing anything. Geuiwogbil 08:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, any news story covered by major press would warrant an article on wikipedia. Zenke's article is the only one published this year specifically about this topic and I would consider that as an update to the story. Rest of the stories published this month only include trivial mentions along with GTA (which set the precedent). A search for other articles printed this year comes up with nothing else. This article belongs at wikinews. Corpx 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What definition? I didn't give any "definition". I'm pointing out that what the policy states can in no way be used to prove non-notability. It just cannot necessarily be used to prove the inverse. In any case, this is still an issue, as your search proved. Not only has it provided even more sources to develop the article originating in the midmonths of 2006, it has shown that the ratings change has influenced PEGI and given cause for reconsideration of the events in this month alone. That certainly seems like a set of long term effects, and this is not an update. It doesn't seem sensible to not cover this subject because it was the subject of media interest once. There is a straight line between Hot Coffee and this, or so it has been noted in various RS; trying to occlude that line, to relegate this to an unwholesome footnote, avoids proper discussion of the consequences of the Hot Coffee mod, at the very least. This event set precedent in terms of user-created content. That's long-term notability right there. Why the urge to delete? Why limit the coverage? I broke this off from Oblivion because I felt it could be covered in detail here, and covered in summary form there. A mere footnote does not befit this content; valuable information about the ESRB review process, about the rationales of the various actors involved, gives context and detail to what would otherwise be caricature. That detail gives a deeper understanding to a variety of encyclopedic topics, such as Hot Coffee, the legality and ethics of game modifications, to the ESRB, to Jack Thompson, to the nature of the media circus; that's notable information, if notability has to mean something beyond what WP:N states. I don't know what I'm arguing against. What would it take you, Corpx, to change your vote? What would I have to prove to you? What evidence would I have to show? How should I write this article, Corpx? What do you want? Geuiwogbil 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenke certainly thinks it's notable.

The speed with which the ESRB revoked the "T" rating should have publishers of mod-able games thinking hard about their priorities. Which is more important: a thriving mod community, or a rating you can bank on?

"Game 3.0" concepts, talked about extensively at Sony's GDC event earlier this year, rely heavily on community input and outside content to make them "sticky," in a social sense. Sony's Phil Harrison spoke calmly about the ability for Home users to mute offensive speech and ignore users with pornography-filled personal spaces. In that light, the ESRB's "Game Experience May Change During Online Play" seems like a gross understatement, the possibility for abuse too tempting for those with lots of time and little perspective to ignore. LittleBigPlanet is even more fraught with problems, as it is more traditionally a game. Will Sony provide personnel to review every fan-made level for offensive content? Will the ESRB? If Barbie-doll breasts can get a game re-rated, consider the dangers of introducing hardcore pornography into a LittleBigPlanet level.

While Hot Coffee will not soon be forgotten, the ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder. A game had to pass through the re-ratings ghetto because of the work of one free-minded individualist. Under assault from thousands of griefers anxious to share the goatse picture with everyone that passes by, how can collaborative games hope to hold up?

I was going to add some further material along this line to the article, but I was busy elsewhere. Geuiwogbil 07:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ESRB's decision on Oblivion should have shaken the world harder" - It should've, but it didnt. Corpx 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your place, Corpx, to decide what's notable and what isn't. Titanic changes in the world can take place without anyone ever noticing a thing. When notable people do notice such things, reflected in a single event, and then proceed to make note of them in reliable sources, that should be noted. Notable people have decided that this is a notable event. That's worth more than your laconic "It should've, but it didn't." Geuiwogbil 08:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not saying this is not notable! I'm just saying that this incident does not have "long-term historical notability of persons and event". The hot coffee mod does, because it created the precedent of recalling stuff. Corpx 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sections exist for a reason and half the info can be taken out - there are way too many quotes~~, including, ""No rest for the weary here!" said game producer Gavin Carter",~~ and a lot of the other stuff is trivial.--daniel folsom 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're voting for the wrong article. Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is over here. This article doesn't have that quotation. Geuiwogbil 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, actually I was voting for this and looking at the wrong article, but hey, a lotta the same applies - thanks though--daniel folsom 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details into the main article, which only has one paragraph. Expanding that to 2 or 3 based on these details sounds fine. — Deckill er 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the following arguments:

No policy that qualifies an article for deletion applies here.
WP:PAPER. There is no technical reason this article cannot be kept.
Deleting this will create a horrible precedent for future deletions. "Crufty" is not a reason for deletion on its own. What we classify as cruft is extensively covered in WP:NOT. Essentially, this article would be deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Deleting articles just because an ad hoc majority does not like it is a Bad Thing.
Almost no people will read this whole article. I'd willing to bet some money for that. That is not a reason for deletion though.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Mrmoocow 06:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written (Good Article), well referenced, notable subject. - ARC Gritt^TALK 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and Merge into main article. It doesn't need a whole article itself. Fin ©™ 22:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject, and a GA Giggy _U^CP 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The large number of reliable sources cited in ESRB_re-rating_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion#References clearly establishes notability. John254 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It would be very scary to have a high quality article like this be lost on dubious grounds. Judgesurreal777 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should not even be up for deletion. Has multiple sources etc... Mathmo ^Talk 07:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has multiple reliable sources meaning it passes notability and is verifiable. Fail to see the problem really. DarkSaber2k 10:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established, well sourced, article does much more than discuss one small facet of Oblivion - it also shows what happens if and when games get re-rated by this body, shows the politics and views of censorship surrounding videogames and shows examples of modding causing ripples (and indeed nipples). It's articles like these which cover things peripheral issues which are damned useful but all too often original research or unreferenced. QuagmireDog 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written and well-referenced. You say it's not notable because people didn't protest in droves like the Hot Coffee mod, but I say it's even more notable because of the completely different reaction (read: barely any reaction) this issue got in comparison to the Hot Coffee extravaganza. Is it because it's a game that's not as popular as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Is it because most 12-year olds don't have the attention span for a game like this, in comparison to the ADD-like GTA series, and therefore because its target audience is older, nudity/violence/etc. in the game doesn't matter as much despite its ESRB rating? Interesting topic in my opinion. Sdornan 01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, notability is NOT in question here. What's in question is whether this incident has "long-term historical notability" per WP:NOT#NEWS. Corpx 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it does, certainly more than the Ten Commandments for Drivers. Sdornan 02:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's more, reliable sources believe it does. Zenke thinks so, Kotaku thinks so, ("But was the Oblivion problem a blip on the radar screen, or a sign of larger future problems lurking in the distance?") Shacknews thinks so. Anyone who has commented on its "long-term historical notability" thinks so. Geuiwogbil 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, events which may lead to developers being responsible for what modders do is historically notable, a footnote added to the last citation in the article (which is actually a Kotaku article, not the Escapist itself) refers to it being a slow burning issue which may haunt developers in the future. It was notable enough to get its own article in The Escapist, it got people upskittled, it got Romero spitting etc. etc.

I don't see anything resembling indiscriminate information here, nor an article about Sonic the Hedgehog's favourite breakfast cereal, nor do I see WP:NOT as being relevant when the article passes WP:V and WP:N so well. 'Not News' wraps "long term notability", BLP and neutrality under the same heading, which to me says it's first and foremost a stopguard against potentially harmful articles and articles created from extremely biased sources. Long term notability is asking for filler-news articles to be shown the door or is asking contributors to predict the future. Either the subject intertwines with other subjects or has potential to cause other notable circumstances in the future, or it does not. This subject does intertwine with other issues surrounding game censorship, modding, maturing game audiences etc. etc., there are citations saying so. To pick the bones any further is as meaningful as spinning a bottle. QuagmireDog 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While at first glance this made think it was another fan created article that was too specific of a topic to stand on its own, I have to say that after reading it I changed my mind. The main article does already explains how it impacted the game itself, but this article does that and goes into greater depth of the explanation and includes information on the industry and public impact. I think it's a good encyclopedic article. Also, (call me a prude) on a side note, I do think the picture of the topless women should be moved further down the article. My two cents (Guyinblack25 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep is verifiable and has coverage from multiple reliable sources. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1) —Xezbeth 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polypop[edit]

Hoax/Neologism Latebird 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense/hoax.Merkinsmum 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense/hoax/unsourced neologism. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps WP:BJAODN :-) --omtay 38 20:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no references to show that this term actually exists, so the page could possibly be a hoax. GrooveDog (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nonsense. WP:MADEUP. — Coren ^(talk) 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsense, hoax, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyamandir classes[edit]

Completely unreferenced, highly POV/brochure style content, bordering blatant advertising and promotion. No source to establish notability beyond a claim to high performance of students. Second AfD nomination, disputed prod, declined CSD due to previous AfD (no result). Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11, it might border spam, but if it does it's from the wrong side of the line. — Coren ^(talk) 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:SPAM. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would have been speedy as G11, except passed a previous afd, so WP:DP says not to. How could it have survived? from the closure: "no consensus... taking into account the two keep comments from people with no edits this afd/the article." I hope we'll have consensus now. no objection to W:SNOW. DGG (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no prejudice to writing a sourced article with appropriate contentDGG (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Bearian 23:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio[edit]

This article is probably a hoax; it was full of contradictory information, and info that was simply and obviously untrue. Srnec and I have discussed its various problems on the talk page and removed the most problematic text, but the whole thing is rather ridiculous. All the incoming links were added by the same anonymous IPs who created this article, and they have since been reverted as well. Adam Bishop 19:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bizarre hoax.Merkinsmum 19:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the sources do not even appear to vaguely support the strange assertions in the article. — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Adam noted, my reasoning is found on the talk page and in edit summaries. Srnec 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Toropov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brandon Toropov

Non notable person per WP:BIO. Article neither asserts notability to nor provides any evidence of it. Karl Meier 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess that "wrote the influential X" is enough of an assertion to bypass speedy, but there are no independent sources attesting to notability. (There certainly seem to be plenty of these marginally-notable Muslim converts on Wikipedia; has anyone investigated whether they're being entered by the same person or group? Seems like a POV-pushing project.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, and probably factually inaccurate. I woneder if this is the same person as User:BrandonYusufToropov?--Sefringle^Talk 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is. -- Karl Meier 05:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep after reading Sefringle's comments.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Sock puppet of Kirbytime[reply]

I voted delete.--Sefringle^Talk 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're not familiar with the article's history.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please note that Fâtimâh bint Fulâni is most probably another sock of Kirbyftime. I'm filing a checkuser. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete!: Non-notable and all OR with no sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources.Proabivouac 06:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources, has always bugged the hell out of me. BYT 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't figure you'd want this hanging around…at least I certainly wouldn't want an article here about me in the current wiki environment. If people are out to get you, they don't delete your bio, they rewrite it.Proabivouac 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the subject of this unwanted and unsourced bio has indicated a desire to see it gone, speedy delete and close is appropriate per BLP.Proabivouac 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoverRace[edit]

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, looks like an ad. Realkyhick 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Overview of the game can be found at gamespy.com and ign.com, two reputable gaming sources.--Ispy1981 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has sources. Game is historical, and has a future in open-source. -RedBlade7 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both sources are trivial we need better ones. Whispe ring 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable game, article needs cleanup, but a wiki-worthy topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)
Comment That may be true but we still need reliable sources proving it's notability. Whispe ring 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GameSpy and IGN are reputable and reliable sources for gaming news and information. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the mentions are both trivial. They both consist of a short paragraph about the game and where you can get it. No review or anything like that. Whispe ring 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak keepI was about to say weak delete after googling for like an hour (hm, sifting through 600 unique results) - so one thing we know for sure is that every single gaming site out there seems to have a trivial mention of it :P But then, one other thing which turned up before i stopped, on page 3 of the results or so, was [20] - it seems to be a really old review, likely from the beginnings of the internet, and it's not accessible from its main site (which i'm not sure would be notable, so no good using as reference anyway). But a user comment says "we even had an article in the 98 december issue of GamePro" - if someone can confirm that there's this article, I'd change to "week keep", also seeing how it still is being developed and might gain some notability as open source game, and how it has its old age and still players, and the fact how it changed from closed commercial to open source. --Allefant 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single reliable, independent reference, per WP:V. To elaborate: forums and wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. Marašmusïne_Talk 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "the company self-proclaimed it as the first internet-based online multiplayer game" is enough to make me think it's just an advert. Fin ©™ 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable soruces, unverifiable, rudimentary listings on IGN and Gamespot not enough unless actual commmentary has been made on the games by the sites (IE features or reviews). DarkSaber2k 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (note: new information) the game is listed on IGN and GameSpy, and has been professionally reviewed archive_link. The review does not look as shiny as the normal GameSpot links because the archive strips some content. --User:Krator (t c) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGN and GameSpot just show directory entries; no articles, news or reviews. The Ogaming review; can we confirm that AhmedF is/was a staff member and not a user-contributed review? Marašmusïne_Talk 07:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With some googling [21] I guess we can be pretty sure he was the one who owned ogaming.com at the time that review was up there. --Allefant 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is ogaming.com good enough though? But at least over archive.org the link can be used as reference, other than the deep-link I had found, and if we assume there really is the offline GamePro article, then I think there's no more reason to delete it, so I changed my vote above - better to err on the keep side. --Allefant 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Husker[edit]

Promotion of YouTube material; not encyclopedic. – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete / Strong delete Blatant spam, not notable (the videos, not the team), just a list without content. - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft, spam, and The Play didn't occur in the 2005 Alamo Bowl regardless of what Nebraska fans and the authors of this article may think. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam.Merkinsmum 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP is not a directory of links Corpx 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Comes pretty close to being an A3 as well. Blueboy 96 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, spam, and linkage --omtay 38 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:NN. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above discussion. Bearian 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of goregrind bands[edit]

Per the AFD on List of nu metal musical groups - Subjective, POV, WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR to categorize bands into genres without citations Corpx
Delete was is OR and merged those which have sources (when you found one proving the genre) to the Goregrind article. Really not necessary with the short list for a separate article.--JForget 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Goregrind from whence it came. Mandsford 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt it still be WP:OR there? Corpx

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of grindcore bands[edit]

Per the AFD on List of nu metal musical groups - Subjective, POV, WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR to categorize bands into genres without citations Corpx
Delete see afd above (per OR and WP:V failure).--JForget 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grindcore Mandsford 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Grindcore, as has been done at the French Wikipedia and the Portuguese Wikipedia and (to a smaller extent) the Danish Wikipedia Mr pand 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a per Mr pand. Inhumer 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Tree Mall (New Jersey)[edit]

Small, non-notable shopping center in New Jersey. One of hundreds in New Jersey (the world's capital of Urban Sprawl) May also fail WP:CORP. Michael Greiner 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN shopping center. Not the place to document histories of every building out there Corpx 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the fact that it's on former military grounds might establish notability. I'll see if I can dig up anything to fix this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to strong delete. I couldn't find anything that says it was built on military grounds, so could this be a hoax? Even if valid, there's nothing else notable about it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history part may be false, but the building exists. (Based on NJ Transit schedule) Also, the article says it was a Military Academy, which was probably just a boarding school. Michael Greiner 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge with Oakland Military Academy, which seems to be a problem as it blends information on the defunct one with the new one in the same city. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The strip mall and academy seem not to be related except that they occupy the same plot of land. Also, the military academy article mixes info with the old one in New Jersey and a new one in Oakland, CA. --Michael Greiner 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if the campus has become a strip mall mentioning it in the article seems sufficient. As for California, you're right, it fooled me. --Dhartung | Talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Bearian 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I got some information from a book. I will post that there now.

Delete. Insufficient proof of notability per WP:CORP. --El on ka 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deathgrind bands[edit]

Per the AFD on List of nu metal musical groups - Subjective, POV, WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category Lugnuts 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delte OR categorizing these bands into a genre without citations Corpx 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mandsford 01:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Narayanananda[edit]

I think this fails WP:BIO. There are claims of notability but no sources cited that establish that notability. There is no indication in this article that this swami has been the subject of multiple articles in independant publications. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- TheRingess (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google search suggests that there are a lot of sources available, many of which look appropriate. JulesH 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The swami has not done much to advertise his books or movement, so that is why there seems not to be many 'independent sources' commenting or reviewing the books. Is it justified to delete the whole article on such a slim basis? His work has had great significance for thousands of people, though this has not been mentioned much in the English press or periodicals. Should a subject not be included in Wikipedia just because it is not well-known in the press or university circles etc.? As JulesH (above) mentions, there are a lot of sources found using a Google search. Toktok 18:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have notability criteria -- sure, he may be notable among his movement, but is he notable outside it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion: it ought to be notable - and one of the ways it can be notable is that it is at least mentioned in Wikipedia. If you limit Wikipedia to phenomena that are notable only in the opinion of in the university society, and which may show a lot of references, you cut off some of the real world. If that is the policy - ok - delete the whole thing - it is to your and many other readers' loss, and the value of Wikipedia is significantly reduced. woodpecker 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to a site which is 'commercial' has been deleted. Ok - but if that is the only place you can get further information, you might keep it? Other places in Wikipedia you see references to Official pages - and they may also contain 'commercial' elements. (PS. I am not trying to sell anything, and I am not part of the movement). woodpecker 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation has been removed, although full reference details (title of book, page no.) have been provided. The very short quotation gives a good idea of some of the author's viewpoints, so why is that to be deleted? woodpecker 07:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JulesH.Baka man 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Anwar 12:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but quotations should be moved to Wikiquote. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations. IPSOS (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobaila[edit]

NN. Fails WP:CORP. low PR [22] Misterdiscreet 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references that assert notability. No significant coverage, no independent sources. Tdmg 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 8 references at the end, that's enough for me. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC) NawlinWiki 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm trusting that the print refs are valid, but their lack of PR is rather telling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 8 references are not about the company, they are mostly about blogging and at least one "reference" doesn't even mention the company, several are just reprints of the company's own press release. The fact that none of the articles has the company name in the title ought to make one suspicious. For those who can read Italian, three of the "offline" press accounts can be found [23], [24], and[25], the 4th I couldn't find. This falls way below the notability and WP:CORP lines. There is no indication that the company or its products are notable other than a quick burst of publicity following their press release. Carlossuarez46 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom by Misterdiscreet, and Carlossuarez46 and TenPoundHammer. Bearian 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devotional Ministry of Trance[edit]

Possible non notable group, sorted under Wikiproject notability. Article claims significant news coverage, but I was unable to find any mention on Google News and only trivial mention through a standard google search. Daniel J. Leivick 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not establish notability of group.TheRingess (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability, no citations establish notability other than the unsourced assertion that an author mentions it in a book - superβεεcat 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete top google hit is this article, not notable --omtay 38 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree not notable, but wikipedia articles very often are top google hits in my experience. Google "stork" "hexagon" or "apples" to see what I mean. - superβεεcat 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment Ohh, i know that. What I meant to imply was that the only other quick and dirty representation of the existence of this group was the very article itself :-) --omtay 38 02:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Lichman[edit]

Non-noteable Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He's a minor contestant in Big Brother and is predicted to leave the programme soon, jepordising chances of expansion. Dalejenkins 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator Rackabello 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK), from where it was split. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnemoneProjectors --omtay 38 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northern Line (band) where it is more suitable as he is not notable in his own right outside BB. Willirennen 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into the BB and NL articles Will ^(talk) 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I would argue that he is notable outside of Big Brother and Northern Line. John Hayes^talk 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example the mention in the newspaper in 2005, see the sources, well before Big Brother, and no mention of Northern Line in that. John Hayes^talk 09:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may have been mentioned in A 2005 newspaper-dating Suzanne Shaw does not equal noteability. Dalejenkins

Comment I quite agree, but when someone is known for two seperate things, and mentioned in newspapers independently of that, I would argue it does get them a little bit further towards achieving notability. If you don't feel that the various sources as a whole make him notable enough for an article, then by all means the article should be deleted. John Hayes^talk 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - I believe he is notable, there are enough sources, but the article needs to be filled out. I would agree in it's current state, it doesn't add much to Wikipedia. John Hayes^talk 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC) _{John Hayes is the creator of this article.}[reply]

Merge per Rackabello. Bravedog 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment err, Rackabello said delete. Guinness 22:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is information in this article which is not appropriate for the Northern Line article. As a member of Northern Line, and as a BB contestant, he is notable enough to have an article. Guinness 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. S. Paul School[edit]

I realize that schools are typically notable, but this contains almost no content whatsoever other than contact information and a website. Rackabello 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it has very little content at this point, but could you please hold off for a day or two? I'm working on adding more. Nikkimaria 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except in some cut and dry speedy delete cases (which this is not one) AfD's don't happen overnight, you've got about five days before an admin makes a final decision. If your article is looking promising by then, it'll likely be kept, schools are generally notable. Didn't mean to discourage you, I only listed this for deletion because when I saw it it had no content. Rackabello 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one's kind of tricky, as schools aren't inherently notable -- but on the other hand, individual school articles seem to almost always survive AfDs (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know...). Article at least features sufficient context now, so the reasons for deletion are no longer valid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if this was a high school, but this is just an elementary school! Are kindergarten's notable too? Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another cookie-cutter elementary school like thousands of others. What's next, articles for every fire hydrant? (Plenty of 'individual school articles' have been deleted over the past 6 years, especially common elementary schools.) Seattlenow 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability for elementary schools. Corpx 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I would contest the deletion of New York Fire Hydrant #452b ;-) --omtay 38 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elementary schools are generally nn.--JForget 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Louis Riel School Division as per AfD precedent. TerriersFan 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really dont see notability besides the services and subjects that are generally provided. Not that it's impossible, just that it isn't here with this one now. DGG (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion. Lots of elementary schools across North America provide the same services. Possibly merge as per TerriersFan. Bearian 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate compendium, or delete if no-one can be bothered to do that; there is no claim of notability, and can someone point me to a policy that says that schools are inherently or generally notable? SamBC 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 21:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Hero[edit]

No sources, predicted release date years away, wonderful example of WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 17:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this article is very short and does not have much information, it is entirely backed up by references. This is a game that has just recently been announced and details are not yet bountiful. However, the article should grow with time.User:Bean23

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It has just been announced and there's no more details to it. Recreate when the game is released/has more sources Corpx 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate much later per Corpx --omtay 38 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was looking for more information on the game after seeing the trailer and when I did not find it here (the article is very much just a stub presently) I googled. One of the first hits was an IGN first look preview and I was surprised by the amount of information already found in it. Besides the basic premise of the game the preview goes on to list the quadrants of the goblin city, name some of the factions in the game, details the nature of innovation in the combat system and gives a description and example of the developers' approach to "artificial" CRPG conventions. I think the article could be nicely expanded by information from this preview, and of course from the website of the game once it is launched (which I think should not be far away, because the developer's website links to it on its front page). Also the developer's website lists two notable printed magazines (EDGE (Issue 173) and Game Informer (Issue 167)) that have information about the game. --Cyhawk 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My company was at E3 2007 and saw the game up close. We watched a well thought out intro cinematic and saw some other cinematic presentations as well as some animation tests.

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

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

The result was redirect to Bullshit. John254 00:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshit[edit]

This disambig. is written like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. Besides, how often is it used when it refers to nonsense? I have NEVER heard this word being used when not refering to shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bullshit, as was the consensus in the previous deletion discussion for this article (archived on the article's Talk page). Propaniac 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What difference would that make? I have never heard it, well, I have, but very VERY few times heard it when someone is talking about nonsense, most often I have heard it when someone is talking about shits from horses. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there were an article about horse feces, I'd suggest redirecting there. But there's not, and since multiple people (including yourself, and myself) are familiar with the phrase being used as a synonym for bullshit, it makes sense to redirect it to that article. Redirects are cheap. Propaniac 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there is. I know, since the disambig says that when talking about brown shit from horses is most often two words, what you say me, or someone else redirects horse shit to feces after the deadline? Like the sound of that? TheBlazikenMaster 17:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bullshit per nom. It really doesn't matter which animal the shit is coming from; it amounts to the same thing in common usage. Shalom ^Hello 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per nom. I've heard "horse shit" used in this sense, but it's really a lesser-used synonym for bullshit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary and Redirect to bullshit, per nom Rackabello 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and that's no bull --omtay 38 20:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, a common enough term even if TheBlazikenMaster has led a sheltered life. Some speakers may have grown up with it, others may just use it for its originality. Certainly there were many more such terms when over 50% of the US (or wherever) population was agricultural. But the point is that the meaning is essentially identical. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bullshit. It may be a cultural thing, but I've heard horseshit as much as bullshit, but they really do mean the same thing. --Charlene 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bullshit. To answer the nom's question, it is indeed used enough to be in a collegiate dictionary, but not frequently from what I understand. Only time I've ever heard it was in a line from the film Alien. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention in Bullshit. It may be a regional thing, but in my experience horseshit's a somewhat stronger term than bullshit in the spectrum of crap. Acroterion _(talk) 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above--Sefringle^Talk 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above and mention in Bullshit. Bearian 23:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda reversed his own closure to delete at the DRV. Xoloz 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring a theremin[edit]

Delete - this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs are not related to each other in any way beyond the use of a particular instrument. That the songs include theremin tells us nothing about the song, the theremin, the artists who recorded the song, how any of these things relate to each other or music in general. Otto4711 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you expect a list of songs to tell you how the artists relate to anything? --Romanski 18:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a link farm. There are thousands of recordings that feature the theremin and such an open-ended topic invites everyone that makes a theremin noise on a track to post a link here.

Kkissinger 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Propaniac 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator..." But point taken. Propaniac 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - loosely associated list, probably woefully incomplete too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It won't get any more complete if it gets deleted. --Romanski 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criterion is not that arbitrary since theremin is a relatively rare instrument. Is properly sourced. --Romanski 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because, according to the same page the nominator is linking to,
there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.
Owing to the fact that the Theremin is such a rare instrument, its use in a (notable) song contributes to the significance of the Theremin, which is the list topic. The list therefore qualifies under the quoted criterion. — Timwi 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide references that these recordings (not songs, as Deor notes below) are famous for including a theremin? (That is, that they have been noted in multiple published sources for that fact, and are not included because someone looked through the liner notes of their CDs until they found one which included a theremin?) Propaniac 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should the songs have to be "famous for including a theremin"? Neil ╦ 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because that's what Timwi is claiming gives justification to the existence of the list, as he wrote above. Doctormatt 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable intersection of topics. And it isn't even a list of songs featuring a theremin; it's a list of recordings featuring a theremin (since any song can be performed in a vast number of arrangements, with a variety of different instrumentations). Deor 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an encyclopedia is not the place to categorize songs by the instruments used in the production Corpx 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Neil ╦ 16:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or better still Merge. A theramin is a rare-ish instrument to use, so it is noteworthy and useful for readers to know which songs contain it. But perhaps merge with Theramin ?Merkinsmum 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The theramin is a relatively rare instrument" is a subjective judgement call, and categorizing songs by what instruments they feature is a violation of WP:NOT, regardless of a percieved rarity of said instrument. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me that the theremin used to be rare, but they are very easy to get nowadays, with a number of companies selling them, either ready-to-play or in kit form, and so there are many, many musicians experimenting with them and incorporating them into their music. This list would eventually grow unmanageable, and at the same time it is not a very useful resource. Should we list every song by The Lothars, for instance? A number of artists who have used theremins are listed at theremin, so, together with the external links there, a reader interested in finding theremin music has some good information here at WP to help them. Doctormatt 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Theremin. The information could be useful to a reader and the article already has great places to put the info in. --omtay38 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be that being a separate article is a better place for an article like this, since one might argue that this is redundant info for the Theremin article, but being separate it does not add any clutter etc, i.e. it's no harm to anyone but useful to some. While I prefer merge to delete, staying separate seems most appropriate to me. --Romanski 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per omtay. Not "loosely associated list" as the theremin is a highly unusual instrument.Circeus 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see how the theremin's being unusual affects whether or not the list is loosely associated - can you explain? In any case, while the theremin is arguably unusual, it is not rare anymore. See the list of bands who have used them in the "popular music" section of theremin: it is quite a long list, and yet it contains only bands whose WP articles mention theremin use. If this article was properly done, it would include hundreds of songs/recordings. How do we address that, would the list then be useful, and how does this all relate to the existence/non-existence of a "List of songs featuring a guitar"? Doctormatt 21:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thus my proposition to merge. There are seven songs on the list, nine if you include the other two. The article theremin would not be so overwhelmed if we add in these few songs, right? --omtay 38 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that the first item in the list (Star Trek theme), featured a theremin in the versions used on the show (the link in the article's footnote is to some guy's performance of it on a theremin). The soundtrack of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is not a song by any definition, is already mentioned in Theremin, as are the Pixies and Good Vibrations. The Lothars thing seems to be a cover recorded by a nonnotable group, and Mysterons explicitly does not feature a theremin. That leaves the Third Eye Blind, Tripping Daisy, and All-American Rejects recordings. What exactly do you think would be the use of adding these to the series of representative examples already included in Theremin? Deor 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i would merge them more on principal. Some editor took the time to find this information. Some of it may be useful to a reader in the future (and I do know that this point is arguable). I'm just always for salvaging whatever possible from an article while still striving to keep the masses of information manageable. Plus, (and i know this is just a personal thing) if I had started the article, I would be much happier to see my information merged than deleted. What's 30 or so more words to an article? --omtay 38 02:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, possibly merge with parent; it contains real listcruft -- incl. a list of songs that don't contain the instrument! Bearian 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are not many decent lists on Wikipedia; this is one of the few. Referenced, defined, non-arbitrary scope, small enough to be manageable, topic of both note and interest. Neil ╦ 16:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We wouldn't have an entry for "List of songs featuring slide whistles" or bongo drums or any musical instrument for that matter. But since this list is small, notable songs can be merged into the theremin article. Spellcast 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't we have a list of songs featuring slide whistles? If it's rare for a song to include slide whistles, a list of such songs (referenced and accurate) would be a good list to have. Neil ╦ 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The theremin is no longer a rare instrument, and it is no longer rare for a song to be recorded using one. Take a look at the (extremely, and happily, incomplete) list of bands who use them on the theremin page: it is already quite long. Doctormatt 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was not to include songs by bands who specialize in using a theremin. Such recordings are still rare (and seems like they're actually becoming rarer with time). --Romanski 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "the idea". Where is this idea stated? How are editors to know that this is "the idea"? How does one know if a band "specializes" in using a theremin, or simply uses one? Lots of artitst listed at theremin as having used theremins seem like artists who just happen to have used a theremin on some of their songs. Certainly The Pixies, Phish, The Flaming Lips, Jean Michel Jarre and The Damned (for instance) do not "specialize" in using a theremin, do they? Can you elaborate on this notion of "the idea"? Thanks. Doctormatt 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beckley[edit]

Not in "fully professional league" per WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know this is not part of the notability guideline, but I interpret the "minor league exclusion" as a hedge against every editor creating an article about their best friend who plays ball for the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers. I make an exception for someone who played 100 years ago, where a baseball card is extant. This is valuable information, not cruft. I see no reason to delete it arbitrarily. Shalom ^Hello 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The *only* information about this minor league player in the article is "He and his 1909 baseball card are sometimes confused with Jake Beckley." There's no source, and no explanation of why this information is significant even if true. NawlinWiki 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete other than a baseball card, I cant find many more sources on him. Nothing about his stats or anything. I think this page might've been created just to increase the value of this card. Corpx 19:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. As a note, the Library of Congress collects baseball cards, which is where the article image comes from. MSJapan 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Truest.--JForget 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP for crying out loud. This baseball card has great value. Corpx, please stop your paranoid thought process. I created this article not to increase the value of the card, but because the card already has value. Kingturtle 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Anything held in the U.S. Library of Congress is notable.[reply]

How about providing some sources that confirm this cards great value. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless information is provided asserting this particular players relevance I think the article should go. As far as I can tell we cannot properly source a biography on this person. The Library of Congress may have a copy of this baseball card as part of a notable collection, but that doesn't make every player automatically notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Corpx got it. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Barthmaier[edit]

Not in "fully professional league" per WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASEBALL which says minor leaguers are not generally notable. If he gets called up, recreate. Corpx 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep He's a top ranked baseball prospect. EdRooney 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be recreated when he's called up. Corpx 04:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is reasonably well-sourced now, and it has been pointed out that his notability stems from more than just his candidacy in the Big Brother TV show. Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Durden[edit]

Non-noteable, failed Reality TV contestant. The article is full of trivia about Oompa-Loompas and cites sources from tabloid newspapers. He was only in Big Brother for 2 weeks and the article is unlikely to expand. I don't think being rich means you're noteable.Dalejenkins 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother 2007 (UK). Propaniac 17:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any important information, then redirect per Propanic Conditional Keep If the article can be fleshed out more. --omtay 38 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, The Secret Millionaire series deserves an article better than this entry
Merge to Big Brother 2007 (UK) Will ^(talk) 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was only known for being on Big Brother I'd agree with a redirect, but since he's been on two notable programmes that doesn't seem appropriate (even if one doesn't have an article yet). The article obviously needs a lot of improving, but that's not a reason for deletion. Iain99 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC) PS removed the nonsense about Oompa-Loompas[reply]
~~Keep~~ I created this on the basis, that there were a large amount of sources about him, independant of his time on Big Brother, which certainly aren't relevant to Big Brother, he is known for other things, such as the journalism. I agree that the nonsense about the Oompa-Loompas isn't needed, I just copied over what was there. The article is still rather thin, but not for a lack of sources, rather a lack of filling out the article. John Hayes^talk 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - As said above, if the article is filled out. John Hayes^talk 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think failed is a bit harsh, he left to attend a funeral. He had done stuff before entering the house and this stuff is not relevant for the BB article, leave it until the end of the series at least, and if he has been heard from then delete it. Darrenhusted 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair we can't keep it just because something might happen, but I feel there is enough in the article already (with a bit of filling out needed). John Hayes^talk 12:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What a pointless article-not noteable. Bravedog 18:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has done a lot more than BB and I was pleased to be able to follow that up 88888 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But suerly there's so little infomation that it could be merged with the Big Brother article? Dalejenkins 08:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would disagree, as most of the information is not relevant to an article on Big Brother. John Hayes^talk 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So you're telling me that infomation about a Housemate's life can not be included in their biography section on the Big Brother series article in which they were in??? Dalejenkins 10:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's like arguing we should merge all the information on Tom Cruise into the Top Gun article. Neil ╦ 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dale that is exactly what I am saying, a lot of it has no relevance to an article on Big Brother, the Big Brother wikiproject is quite clear on what should and shouldn't be in an the housemates section. John Hayes^talk 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published writer, appeared on multiple television programs, business owner. While just being on a gameshow does not necessarily make someone notable, it also does not mean someone notable for other works suddenly becomes non-notable; that would be silly. Neil ╦ 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy character[edit]

Delete unsourced subjective article that at least verges on OR. Either it's OR in which case it doesn't belong or it's a dictionary entry in which case it doesn't belong here. I removed the list of examples because it was unsourced opinion. Wryspy 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. There do not appear to be reliable sources that are about this term; rather, there are a lot of blogs and message boards which simply use the term. Note that if this is deleted then Category:Legacy characters should also go. Otto4711 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term seems to be in wide use within the comic book industry, and is certainly an encyclopedic topic. Sources that appear to be reliable which discuss the topic and could be used to fix lack-of-source issues include: [26] (author is a professional animator and animation teacher, so qualifies as an established expert per WP:V) [27] (published by MIT) [28] (professionally published magazine site). JulesH 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are blogs and so are almost by definition disqualified from being reliable sources. The third uses the word "legacy" a number of times (didn't notice if the exact phrase "legacy character" appeared) but it does not appear to be about the term "legacy character." Sources that use the term are not enough. They have to be about the term. Otto4711 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a blog is "by definition" disqualified from being reliable, you're using a strange definition. Certainly one that isn't supported by WP:V. The first is written by an undisputed expert on the subject matter, so qualifies under the self publishing exemption in that policy. The second is not self-published, so is not automatically ruled out, and I would say being published by a world-renowned university gives it some credibility. The third may not be about the "term" legacy character, but it is clearly about the same concept (even to the point of discussing the same characters, the Flash and Green Lantern, that are primarily used as examples in the article), and as wikipedia is not a dictionary we shouldn't be looking for articles about the term anyway. JulesH 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V#SELF: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (emphasis added) It goes on to say that such sources may be acceptable if the self-publisher has previously been established as an expert and had relevant work published in reliable third party sources. No evidence has been offered here that Mark Mayerson qualifies under that guideline. Regardless, it is irrelevant whether he does or not, because the post at the other end of your link is not discussing legacy characters as defined in the Wikipedia article. It is discussing comic strip and animated characters (not comic book characters) who continue to be published after their creator dies. The second source also does not discuss second-generation comic book characters but instead defines "legacy character" in terms of soap operas and professional wrestling as characters that have been around but out of the spotlight, not new charcters based on old ones. The third source may indeed be published under the auspices of a professional magazine, but considering it has a factual error in its very first sentence I question its reliability and even if it is reliable it is not an article about the term "legacy character." You are correct that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why under WP:NEO we should not have articles like Legacy character in the absence of reliable third party sources that are specifically about the term rather than just using the term. Otto4711 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this term doesn't appear to be notable enough, nor verifiable enough for an article. If other (and better) sources can be found, I'll definately reconsider. --Android Mouse 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BASEBALL states that "minor league players are generally not notable." Since he has not yet made an appearance in MLB, he is not notable. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 17:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelyn Acosta[edit]

Not in "fully professional league" per WP:BIO. Truest blue 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASEBALL - Minor leaguer who has yet to make an appearance in MLB Corpx 16:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, any affiliated minor league is fully professional, so the nominator's rationale is invalid. That isn't to say that I would support a keep vote. There are literally thousands of minor league ball players active right now, nevermind historically. They aren't all notable. Resolute 04:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not yet meet notability criteria of WP:BIO or WP:BASEBALL. -- Satori Son 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense (former versions), a1 empty (current version). Not listed as a cast member of The Wire (TV series) either in that article or on IMDB. No sources whatsoever. NawlinWiki 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Doescher[edit]

Tagged as {{db-nn}} but the sole editor removed it. The notability is not asserted; there's nothing about him on IMDB; and no sources were provided.

ROGER ^TALK 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Has anyone read this article closely? It's complete and total bullshit. Before Sumnjim edited it, it included him being an actor, winning a tennis tournament twice and defeating Doug Flutie in a game of basketball. COME ON!--Ispy1981 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability was asserted, as it states is an actor in the HBO tv series The Wire (which, in my eyes asserts notability -- you may disagree with me). However, I did some searches on google and couldn't find anything on this guy. On the article The Wire (TV series) it does not mention him in the cast, so I don't know if he just made a cameo, or what. I am on limited access internet so I can't do as much research as I would like to, but if there really isn't any ghits on this guy, then it's safe to assume his role in that TV show was very minor, and not enough for him to pass WP:BIO. The creator of the article is also the subject, suffered from massive WP:COI and WP:POV. Insulting his younger brother (removed), and listing un notalble personal accomplishments as eating 10 hotdogs, winning money while gambling, and winning a pick-up basketball game (all removed). I don't think there is going to be any substance to this article, and the person just isn't notable --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated previously, I don't even believe this is real. I think the whole thing is a hoax, even The Wire stuff.--Ispy1981 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as I was about to put in my comment, I had an edit conflict with you, and didn't feel like re-writing it, so left it the same. Since I can't confirm or deny anything, I'll leave it in until proven otherwise. If I took it out the whole article would say "Justin Doescher (b. December 19, 1980)". Would be kind of funny to see an article like that, but oh well. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G1 Nonsense. Likely a hoax, especially considering the article's history. Rackabello 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarmac (student newspaper)[edit]

This is a high school newspaper that fails [[WP:]] and WP:N. Though it claims multiple awards, a Google search here shows up just one independently verified award here which is one given by a local church newspaper. None of the 'alumni' have their own Wikipedia articles. Finally, there are no sources on the page. Undoubtedly a worthy paper but I don't see the multiple reliable sources required to keep. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; specific information and references about awards might change that. Propaniac 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have selectively merged two paragraphs into the article on Chaminade High School. For GFDL purposes (though it's not really necessary), I recommend blanking the article and redirecting it to that same page. It's not notable in it's own right as a newspaper. Shalom ^Hello 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable high school paper. NawlinWiki 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly. I'm not a fan of squelching High School Journalism. Ahh well. --omtay 38 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the High school article makes mention of the Journal, although some info from here can be transferred to the High school article.--JForget 22:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and sadly as per Omtay38. Can the best be merged back into the parent article? Bearian 23:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have completed the merge back of the key facts and the one award reference I can find. Bridgeplayer 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsby, Alabama grade crossing accident[edit]

Prod notice removed by Realkyhick (talk · contribs). Yet another non-notable car crash. Notability is not temporary, and without a proper assertion of it, the proper coverage of this is at February 2007 in rail transport and List of rail accidents (which covers road crossing collisions).

delete as nominator. Circeus 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, per WP:NOT#NEWS. This accident killed four people. 40,000 people or so are killed in the US alone each year, and 1.2 million a year worldwide. We do not need the eqiuvalent of hundreds of thousands of articles a year detailing each fatal car wreck. Edison 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unfortunate but not notable traffic accident. Carlossuarez46 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to distinguish this accident from the thousands of others that happen all the time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look both ways and then Merge into Thorsby, Alabama, since this may be one of the most significant events in that town's history Mandsford 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, non-notable bike club --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Bulls[edit]

NN motorcycle club. First hit is the official club page (which redirects to a Yahoo Group), second is this article. The rest are blogs and personal pages, and of course the WP mirrors. Clearly fails WP:N in all possible areas. MSJapan 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost. This cycling club is not notable. Shalom ^Hello 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage from the Hindu, one of the biggest newspapers in India. I copyedited it enough to where I can think it can stay as a stub. Corpx 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see multiple sources, though - there's one decent article, and there rest are statements in passing, which are clearly trivial. The article as copyedited is now a dicdef - I could pare that down to one sentence. MSJapan 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the 2 articles from The Hindu, CNN India coverage, more from CNN India. Corpx 16:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep What would pass for a non-notable motorcycle club in the Western world may just be the most notable one in India. Refs look good. Caknuck 07:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gash (slang)[edit]

Dicdef, pure and simple. HArdly notable. `'Mїkka 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Not a dictionary, especially one of slang Corpx 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is completely gash ;-) --omtay 38 20:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - This is what the urban dictionary is for. -- Hot Dog Wolf Bark! 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, gash is relatively common slang here, but that ain't what it means. --Charlene 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just wrong, the word means 'rubbish' because it primarily means what the fair Charlene is hinting at. Nick mallory 23:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, esp. Charlene and Jayvdb. That's Nasty. Bearian 23:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion[edit]

A previous AfD debate (at a different title) was speedy-closed by a non-admin. DRV overturned this closure as inappropriate, and suggested relisting. Per the original listing, Weak delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del Nonencyclopedic topic. Incidents happen every second all over the world. `'Mїkka 15:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - Not the place for news reports! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
Delete A near collision does not meet any notability standard I can find. Did it even make the newspapers? If so then delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems contradictory, if it didn't make the news it's not notable, but if it did it's covered by WP:NOT#NEWS? It meets the WP:N standard, plus the draft standards for aircraft accidents and incidents. Also the continuing news coverage means it is not covered by WP:NOT#NEWS either. So I don't understand your reasoning. Dhaluza 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability of the incident was established in the article shortly after the original nomination was made. Borderline, yes, but also notable in that it's a warning of what could happen, and an illustration of how the collision avoidance proceedures did work. Repercussions of this should be felt for awhile, as it's not even been 6 weeks since it happened. - BillCJ 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable incident, in and of itself, with too little sourcing. In previous discussions, supporters have said the notability in this incident lies in the successful use of the AMASS system to avert disaster. If this is so, then any worthwhile content should be merged to that article. [edit conflict] BillCJ's comments are exactly why this article should be deleted. The borderline notability, I feel, doesn't cross the border yet...the recent occurence of the event moves it strongly into the "News" category, which we are not a news service...and if it's primary purpose is to illustrate how collision avoidance systems worked, then that's where this info belongs; in an article about collision avoidance systems. --InkSplotch 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Striking my vote for now, as it looks like the article has been greatly expanded since this AfD restarted. I'm still on the fence about notability vs. news reporting, but I want more time to think about it before I weigh in again. --InkSplotch 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) With more time to think, and much expansion on the article in question, I'm please to change my view to keep as more disparate sources have been added to solidify this incident's claim to notability. --InkSplotch 20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the NTSB do formal investigations regarding all runway incursion incidents? If so, probably not notable. If not, the fact that it is doing so in this case may indicate some more significance than a run-of-the-mill incident. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, all incidents must be reported to NTSB but the depth of investigations are based on severity. A preliminary report has been filed, but it gives no weight to the importance of this incident over the 154 other reports filed in May. I expect the final report will be no different...it looks like a routine filing to me. --InkSplotch 19:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB only actively investigates a select few accidents and incidents. From Ref 2: "We investigate probably just a handful (of incursions) a year." So we have additional info from the NTSB categorizing this as more notable than the other 154. Dhaluza 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aviation accidents are typically notable by virtue, but close misses are not. Unless notability can be demonstrated it should not be kept. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't agree with alot of arguments here; this runway incursion would be considered "Severity A" - the highest - where Separation was decreased and participants took extreme action to avoid a collision. The NTSB does do formal investigations regarding all runway incursion incidents, however only a few will generate a full-length report, as will probably happen in this case (based on severity and the use of the improved AMASS system). A full report generally indicates notability, as it reflects and analyzes the severity of the incident, the safety issues uncovered, and the safety recommendations subsequently issued. Near misses are often notable; fatalities, injuries or damage to aircraft are not a requirement for improvements in aviation safety. That having been said, yes I do think WP:NOT#NEWS (the article reads essentially as a Wikinews article), and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (don't know what the Final Report, if any, will say) do apply here, and perhaps until the report is issued or other factual information develops it would best be merged with the AMASS article. I've wavered back and forth several times though, and want to try to work on the article over the next few days to see if I can change my mind again. Lipsticked Pig 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Please look at the article now; I think it show obvious sign of notability Lipsticked Pig 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't think notability of an incursion or near-miss is assured unless the NTSB (or other organization, for near-misses outside the US) prepares a full report. Independent non-trivial third parties tend to take notice of full reports and discuss them, which is why incidents that have received a full report are generally considered notable. But right now it's a bit crystal-balling to say whether the NTSB will make a full report on this. --Charlene 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agreed with you entirely, but now its clear to me that this is going to generate a full report Lipsticked Pig 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP Aviation accident/incident articles must wait for a full accident report. This may or may not be true, depending on the available information. TWA 800 was notable immediately, even though the report came years later. The article can grow over time as information is released once the notability threshold is reached. Dhaluza 09:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability seems marginal at best. Unfortunately such incidents are too common to be of encyclopedic importance. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Airport Movement Area Safety System, subject isn't notable enough for an article, but is relevant to the AMASS article as a case where it worked. --Rory096 00:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right now it's news, it's unclear what if any relationship to AMASS there will be (wait for the report), the AMASS went off, but whether that improved anything is unknown- it may even have made things worse; wait for the report. My gut feel is that this is too nitty-gritty to be encyclopedic, encyclopedias are usually more concerned with broader-brush issues, where people died or where there was greater drama or where there was major ramifications. This seems to be a primary sourced data item.WolfKeeper 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't really seem to even meet the notability guidelines suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Notability guidelines? let alone more general standards of notability. Seems much more suited to Wikinews. --Stormie 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does, because the controller was severely reprimanded. Dhaluza 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Katie Couric must secretly visit Wikipedia, for a similar incident was on the CBS Evening News tonight. What's telling is that there have been 186 incidents in the U.S. in the first half of 2007, an average of one every day, which is why we can't have an article about every single one. Mandsford 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not for every one, but "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade" probably deserves an article. Lipsticked Pig 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically an airport traffic jam. No collision, no injuries, nothing to see here. Resolute 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Body count is only one component of notability. Not all fatal accidents are notable, and not all non-injury accidents are not. It depends on the circumstances, and what the sources say about it's relevance. Dhaluza 09:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a vote, and that isn't a reason for deletion Lipsticked Pig 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep From the second reference as quoted in the article: "Federal Aviation Administration officials are calling a near-collision at San Francisco International Airport the most serious incident of its kind at the airport in at least a decade." That is prima facia claim of notability. We have two independent sources, the FAA and NTSB (which are completely independent), commenting on the severity of the incident, quoted in reliable published sources, so this meets the standard for WP:N. Also the controller was forced to recertify for their job, which would count as a severe reprimand, as outlined in the draft notability standards previously posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Notability guidelines? Dhaluza 09:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a very near miss, and the aircraft involved were imperiled. The FAA quote Dhaluza gives above show that this incident is very serious, and therefore notable in the history of US aviation safety. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though borderline. Since it was a Category A incursion and listed as the most serious of its kind within a decade, that gives it some claim of notability. It doesn't appear on the NTSB list of major investigations, though, but it adds some context to the Airport Movement Area Safety System article. Without AMASS, this could have been a fatal accident. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted by Wolfkeeper above, AMASS might have almost caused an accident. So far its been established that, alerted by a warning from AMASS, the controller yelled at the SkyWest to stop, and it stopped right in the path of the Republic jet. Lipsticked Pig 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although ultimately nothing happened, this kind of potentially tragic event is sufficiently rare to be noteworthy. Plus, if we keep articles about the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion or the George W. Bush pretzel incident, this one should be kept too. :) --Targeman 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Refs demonstrate it is an important case in the study of airport runway safety. --Oakshade 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 00:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only because the FAA says that it is "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade". This implies a degree of notability. Axl 08:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; "the most serious incident of its kind in at least a decade".--Prosfilaes 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FAA commentary shows the seriousness and notability of this incident. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only because the FAA calls it the most serious incident of its kind in over a decade. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

I just don't see why there should be such a massive article devoted to one aspect of one game. Looking over the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article, I see little that isn't in there that is particularly needed. While well-referenced, the level of detail to me seems to approach ridiculous levels. David Fuchs 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure it fails WP:NOT by a strict reading, but I must concur with the nominator - this is a level of detail to a specific topic that is not appropriate for a general knowledge encyclopedia. A merge might be proper, but I suspect not needed as the main article has a healthy "development" section already. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no guidelines of any kind on "level of detail", other than that the detailed information must be either be explaining a more notable whole, or that the details must have been covered by reliable sources specifically about them. The latter is the case here: many reliable sources have written articles specifically about the development of Oblivion, making the development of the game suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, with as much information as the sources and article length allow. The article fits WP:SIZE.
I agree with the above editors that the level of detail is approaching ridiculous levels. However, that is not because of this Wikipedia article, but because the amount of pre-game hype around games in major franchises exceeds all normal proportions. Not including this in Wikipedia would be terribly WP:IDONTLIKEIT: it is not up to us, Wikipedia editors, to exclude this if reliable sources have written about it. Changing the games press does not start here. Finally, "Detailed Histories" (what this article is) is not on WP:NOT#INFO. --User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Krator. This article was split so as to comply with WP:SIZE and WP:SS recommendations. If we are to begin deleting policy compliant articles solely for their level of detail, then these guidelines are dangerously misleading. Geuiwogbil 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the main topic has established notability, there are no limits on the degree of expansion. If someone can trim it with reasonable justification (repetitions, hype, OR, etc.), go for it. Othewise there is no inherent harm to have it. `'Mїkka 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another detailed, well-written, referenced article that I imagine has been branched out of the parent article at some point. WP:PAPER —Xezbeth 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is basically a time line of events during the development of the game. I think preview articles on the game give the topic notability Corpx 16:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Yikes. This is incredibly anal-retentive detail, definitely indiscriminate, and dare I say it -- crufty. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is indiscriminate the new buzzword? Even in that ridiculously overlinked to WP page, none of those five points relate to this article. —Xezbeth 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, beyond that, it provides no guidance. It seems we must rely on Dictionary.com for our policy clarification:
in·dis·crim·i·nate (ĭn'dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nĭt) adj.

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.

2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.

3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.

4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

Now, which one of those is this article supposed to be? Geuiwogbil 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like #4. Certainly is a large piece for one video game and its development. I have yet to see a video game article at FA that has that long a dev section. David Fuchs 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that makes me the first! Geuiwogbil 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is foolish. Geuiwogbil 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While you all are here, could one of you assess this article for GAC, or provide helpful, peer-review style commentary? Geuiwogbil 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Geuiwogbil 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Not seeing any valid reason to delete. A detailed and well referenced article on a notable subject is a good thing. Deleting an article because it covers its subject too well? Absurd.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable facet of the game, valid subarticle. Still, it's overly long and falls into minutae about how Bethesda set up their E3 demo room. I'd vote to delete ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion though, an utterly inconsequential piece of non-news, but then again we do have lots of other inconsequential pieces of non news like Essjay and Joshua Gardner. - hahnchen 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Now you've got your chance! Fuchs has nominated it for deletion too! Wonder where he got that idea? Geuiwogbil 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~~ That bit was somewhat rude. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well-researched, thoroughly referenced, notability established, obvious keep. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced article on a notable aspect of a notable game. I could see deleting it if it was on a fictional in universe topic like Development of the Death Star, but this is real world info that is covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are elements of the article that don't meet policy we can just remove them, the article itself should stay. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well researched and referenced, thus, making it exactly as detailed as required --omtay 38 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is an article on Development history of The Elder Scrolls series with a section on this; this could be absorbed into that, however, that article is long enough as is. This article does go into more detail possible than the main Oblivion article. Could do with some chopping down, but the topic warrants some decent coverage. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 12:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was also put up for deletion by David Fuchs --omtay 38 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the general development article. I'd prefer a merge because the content is all real-world and not a mix; however, an entire real-world article is a nice precedent, as it shows that fiction writers are also interested in the out-of-universe aspects (and it clearly passes WP:N and doesn't seem too indiscriminite, if a little overly detailed). This entire AfD is a serious problem; why are we discouraging subarticles on real-world aspects, when we are all obsessed with keeping subarticles on in-universe aspects? Think about it: you are sending the wrong message. Deletion is a ~~simpleton and childish~~ poor approach to problems like this; fix it appropriately by starting a merge proposal, and have respect for the people who are trying to set a precedent here. — Deckill er 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the keep vote, but I can't make out what you're suggesting in the first few sentences. What does the "it" in "it's all real-world" refer to? The content to be merged or the article into which the content will be merged? Do you like real-world/not real-world mixes, or do you dislike them? What would be setting a precedent? The merge? Not having an AFD? Who's trying to set precedent? Me? Fuchs? You? Geuiwogbil 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the message; I wrote it as I was heading out the door. — Deckill er 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Geuiwogbil 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, attributed article and meets notability. I oppose to merge into Development history of The Elder Scrolls series because it will increase highly article size. Carlosguitar 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject, appropriate as its own article due to length. Everyking 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since the article is this long, it is clearly notable enough to stand alone as an article. I also just reviewed and passed this article for GA.--Danaman5 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Disclaimer: I don't know anything about the "Elder Scrolls" games beyond what I just read in Wikipedia.] This is a multi-award winning, very popular game and thus highly notable. Therefore the development of the game deserves a place in Wikipedia. However given the lengthy and detailed description, this aspect of the game's background needs its own article. Axl 09:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, detailed, well sourced, notable subject etc. Fin ©™ 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stansfeld O&BC F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stansfeld O&BC F.C.

Non notable club playing below Step 7 (and does not appear to have played above that level). Number 5 7 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Kent County Premier template isn't even for this team (I'll rm it), and the KC Premier League is at 7 itself. This is clearly below that as stated, and therefore does not meet N. MSJapan 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - officially at level 12 and in practice at level 11. Either way below the level 10 threshold. BlueValour 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created in March 2006 and all we now have to show for it is name, location, date they were established and what league they are playing in next season. Clearly 'not notable' whatever level they play at. --Malcolmxl5 19:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mailing lists[edit]

This list is unencyclopedic and has no hope of ever being complete. There are entire web directories dedicated to keeping track of mailing lists, and even those only cover a portion of what is available. Individual, highly notable lists deserve their own articles, other listings should be left to the web directories - as Wikipedia is not a directory. Versageek 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Also redundant: the notable ones are in Category:Mailing lists anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. wikipedia is not web directory. `'Mїkka 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am usually not a big fan of "list of _____" lists (there are some exceptions), however a "list of lists" list? laughable. wiki is not a list of indiscriminate information. I see blue and red linked lists, so does this mean any any list can be added to the list? If that is the case, I highly doubt that this encompasses each and every mailing list there is. Unmaintainable, and un-needed. Notable mailing lists can have their own article and that's all you really need. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally unmaintainable. There are thousands and thousands of mailing lists. Is this supposed to include every mailing list for a neighborhood, or a college club, or a website? Propaniac 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete where or how would it ever end?Merkinsmum 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Ach du lieber! No entry for Yahoo Groups? Seriously, this list will never, ever be complete, given the Internet's nature. Blueboy 96 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary directory page.--JForget 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree with Blueboy96, this page will never be complete, it could be considered "Useful" but take a look at WP:USEFUL. Also, wikipedia is not a directory, which is technically what this is, (see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY)--♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information.--Absurdist 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bilsborough[edit]

wp
g
b

) – (View AfD)

Article makes no claims for notability other than participation in a group show and the fact the artist earned a grant. About 1,000 ghits, 100 of which are from Wikipedia. Antonrojo 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. As written, doesn't seem up to an article just yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing asserted that passes WP:BIO. Eusebeus 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eusebeus. Bearian 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Leroux[edit]

The subject matter of this article lacks notability. A google search also provides a lack of substantial hits to the above article. S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds evidence showing he is of historical interest Antonrojo 14:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think anyone whose life merits an actual printed book biography is notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lenahan absolutely right. `'Mїkka 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of substantial hits? Try this one. From the article: Leroux "...had already served as a member of the convention that organized New Mexico Territory." Strong evidence to indicate he was also important in blazing a trail from NM to California. Needs cleanup badly--Ispy1981 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum He also has a town in New Mexico named for him: Antoine Leroux, New Mexico.--Ispy1981 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I would think anyone with a town named after him would be very notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Are we all reading the same thing? No references, no claim to notability.Callelinea 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think referencing will be a problem. Like I said, there's a whole book about the guy. And a quick Google shows plenty of other sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Callelinea, we don't decide based on the state of the article, we decide on the notability of the subject. We're capable of doing our own searching, you know. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is in a very sorry state at present though. —Xezbeth 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable mountain man with 350+ Google Books results. One source there labels him (in context) as Mr. Antoine Leroux, the best qualified man in the world to speak on the subject, (not excepting the renowned Christopher Carson,), which is quite an encomium. Should be easily sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No editorializing here. Just a plain old Keep ShoesssS ^Talk

13:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep A notable figure in Arizona history. Chimakwa 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Person has a town named after him, a government page describing his importance, and many other things that make him notable. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SecretWisdom[edit]

Fails WP:V; article is nearly incomprehensible. -- Merope 13:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google search shows that IT is possible to verify this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete but if any content is new, merge with articles about Hinduism or oral tradition.Merkinsmum 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a thin line between "cleanup" and "delete". My instinct says that cleaning and referencing this article just isn't practical, but I could be wrong. Shalom ^Hello 02:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hinduism or oral tradition, per Merkinsmum, and reference (per Siva1979's comment).--JayJasper 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, a1 empty in current form, previously g11 spam. NawlinWiki 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Ideas or Business Concepts to Market[edit]

Basically an essay full of unsourced original research. Created by newly registered user Profithouse (talk · contribs) and seems like disguised advertising for this product. I'm taking this here rather than prod or nominate for speedy because, although I do suspect that this is advertising, my primary concern is the original research. MartinDK 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, not written as an encyclopaedia article, quite agree this is a (poorly disguised) advert. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam. LittleOldMe 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: spam, and a glance at the history suggests that the original author has blanked almost all of the former text, leaving behind a single, essaylike paragraph that lacks any context or relation to the title subject. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Stith[edit]

Non-notable church executive that has answered a few questions from the press. She has done nothing notable herself. Justanother 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: For anyone that thinks that her title of "president" means that she is notable; here are five "presidents of Scientology" just in Massachusetts - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - there are likely hundreds of "presidents of Scientology" worldwide. She is just someone that answered a few questions about the Church, she has no notability herself. --Justanother 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the standard notability definition of "multiple nontrivial sources", she passes without a hitch, thanks to the research of User:Smee. Note that the question of her notability has been discussed on the article talk page. Shalom ^Hello 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that talk page discussion is well worth reading with two critics of Scientology (Wikipediatrix and AndroidCat) and one neutral party (Steve Dufour) arguing that she is NOT notable. Three critics of Scientology, Smee, Fahrenheit451, and Tilman, argue she is. Thanks for your input. --Justanother 13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the context of the article when I said that [29] AndroidCat 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her name is mentioned in a lot of press articles simply because she acts as a public spokesperson. This does not make her notable. Lurker (talk · contribs) 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientology President Heber Jentzsch is also just a PR person, but does also have his own article. --Tilman 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know that one. If I ever learn all the wikipedia policies, then I might consider studying law :-) --Tilman 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Knowing which is what is half the battle. :) AndroidCat 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is pretty obvious from the many sources in the article, she is (or was) a senior PR person for scientology, and was introduced in the radio as the "President of Scientology". See also previous discussion here [30]. (Btw, I respectfully disagree that Steve is a "neutral" party). --Tilman 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that I was a neutral party. (I am defending Scientology in order to get the attention of Tom Cruise because I have a movie script to sell him.) Sorry I didn't jump on Justanother's comment sooner. Steve Dufour 17:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Very notable I really don't know why anyone would say she isn't.Callelinea 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable. Detailed, referenced article. —Xezbeth 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, very few results on Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly expanded and referenced since I questioned it. AndroidCat 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is kind of weird because none of the sources talk about her as a spokesperson, they just feature her being a spokesperson. It seems to me that her notability must therefore be a product of someone's original research. On the other hand, what the article says seems to be true and doesn't do any harm. I didn't nominate it myself because of this, but since it is nominated I have to vote according to my understanding of WP policy. Steve Dufour 06:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being quoted a couple times does not make a person notable. What is she 'known for'? What has she 'accomplished' that is notable? Peace.Lsi john 12:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is the "president of scientology". --Tilman 15:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is the president of one Church of Scientology. There are likely dozens of such "presidents". --Justanother 16:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is a perfect example of the unfortunately prevailing mindset held by both Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, that anything connected to Scientology automatically deserves an article of its own. Although the article is copiously sourced, these sources do little but verify that Stith exists. Ask yourself what article you would merge this one into if you had to - and nothing comes to mind. That's because Stith hasn't actually done anything worth inclusion in an encyclopedia. wikipediatrix 14:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a spokesperson doesn't imply notability. SamBC 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-referenced.--Fahrenheit451 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This is a major TV show on a major TV network, and deleting it is simply out of the question. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 13:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Horn[edit]

This article fails to have any notability whatsoever. It's just a regular nondescript TV show that airs in the middle of the day, not some notable night-time show (like Wheel of Fortune or Jeopardy). NBAonNBC 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom FoxSportsRadio 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are sports fans that can actually play sports and this is a very good show that a lot of people like. There is even a Yahoo! group for this show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.184.156 (talk • contribs)

Definite Keep - Look, don't delete the ENTIRE article. Believe it or not, despite not being on primetime television, Around the Horn DOES have a strong fan base [31]. Yes, despite the fact that the show has tons of esoteric material (in terms of what actually happened in each episode), it has been on the air long enough to earn at least earn a stub on Wikipedia. If anything, leave the article as it is, because it provides enough information to those who don't know about ATH. FYI, I know it seems crazy, but the show has aired over 1,000 episodes. Not even the longest running TV show of all-time has aired close to 1,000 episodes. Hope this changes your mind. Morea37 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep - This a very notable sports show on the most notable sports network. And I don't really know who considers 5:00 the middle of the day? Jeopardy comes on at 7:00, so you're calling 2 hours a big difference? I agree that it should be cleaned up (a lot of unreferenced stuff), but it should by no means be deleted. Heck, they just aired their 1,000th show on Tuesday, that sounds like notable to me. Bjewiki 01:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement - There's some unsourced information in this article, particularly in the "Points" and "Misc" sections. Some of this will likely not be able to be sourced, because they are just viewer recounting of events, so these will probably have to be deleted. Bjewiki 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Nondescript? This is a sports talk game show. There are set rounds, a scoring system, winners, and established characters. I'd like to also note that in Chicago, Jeopardy airs a half-hour before ATH. I'd also say that having a consistant slot in the lineup of the very notable ESPN network for the last several years counts as being notable. This is a bad faith nomination. BTW, I hope you nominate JRIB and PTI as well, just to be consistant. Because saying those shows are notable, while this one isn't, is quite lame.Mshake3 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Definitely a notable show. Nom. is a new user and does not address WP:N in any way. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200% Keep - ATH is one of ESPN's signature shows, and deserves its own article. Moreover, what may not be notable for you, may be very notable for some other user. If there is no other reason to delete this article other than the "notability" factor, then this seems to be a waste of an AFD. Dknights411 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As the previous person noted, this is a complete waste of an AfD. As Bjewiki pointed out, ATH just ran its 1000th episode, almost 5 years of broadcast time...if it wasn't "notable" or an important facet of ESPN's sports commentary programming, I seriously doubt that it would have that kind of longevity. The sports columnists that are featured on the show are regular contributors to the newspapers that they are employed by (or were, in the case of Kevin Blackistone and J. A. Adande), and Adande and Jay Mariotti have served as guest hosts on Pardon the Interruption. The show is no more or less "notable" than PTI, Cold Pizza, Jim Rome is Burning, or any other of the sports banter shows that ESPN regularly features, as Mshake3 noted. The article needs cleanup and sources, but deleting it is massive overkill. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -There are plenty of reliable sources to verify this and to write an article on. Please read the notability guideline on Wikipedia before nominating an article next time.++aviper2k7++ 03:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable television show. No credible argument that it is not notable. --rogerd 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY Strong Keep: It's as notable as any of those other radio talk shows. AtH discusses many popular sports and pop culture topics in much the same manner as any radio talk show. I would actually consider this much more notable than Wheel or Jeopardy because AtH discusses very popular sports and pop culture topics, as I stated earlier, and as Willbyr stated, is a popular-enough show to air 1,000 episodes for more than 5 years. And based on your reason for nominating this article, should all talk shows be deleted? This has more notability than a lot of those talk shows out there. It's one of the few shows that ESPN has aired daily in recent years. There's never once been a re-run; every single day, a new show is aired discussing brand new topics. Many people view the program daily just to see what's new in the Sports World, which is evidence of its 1,000 episodes. ––Ksy92003(talk) 06:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biaora level crossing accident[edit]

Non-notable rail-to-vehicle collision. As the article mention, this is pretty typical from India, and List of road accidents givens a number of deadlier accident for the country, making this one thoroughly non-notable. Circeus 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete In principle we're talking about a non-notable article with no functional references (I believe the link in that page is dead), but there's one thing which caught my attention and might, in my opinion, warrant its stay: the fact the cart's driver was carrying jewels with him when the acident happened. According to the article, the man claims the police stole them. Did this cause any sort of controversy in India? Perhaps this was important back there.
It was not possible for me to tell with the state of the article, I'm assuming that any extra verifiable notability will surface during the debate. Circeus 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd forgotten this was on my watchlist, I put there a year ago along with comments on the talk page to the effect of the nominators point. Accidents of this magnitude are far from uncommon in India and media coverage was virtually zero. Simply non-notable.--Jackyd101 01:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Nothing significant to warrant an article. Accidents like this are quite common in a country with world's largest rail network. --Ragib 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verifiable sourcing. Hornplease 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the article says This incident is typical of dozens of tragic accidents which mar India's railway system every year. WP:NOT Wikinews. Few if any WP:RS on which an article can be based. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable accident involving non-notable people under non-notable circumstances. Unfortunately fatal accidents are not an uncommon thing, and without something to show this is notably different than the rest, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - not the place for news reports Corpx 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan and Corpx. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Had this tragedy led to changes in railroad crossing practices, or lower speed regulations for trains, or had some enduring societal implications, it might have been more notable than all the other train/vehicle encounters. Edison 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunate but ultimately not notable. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Д===List of nu metal musical groups===

Subjective, POV, WP:OR, easier to maintain with a self-updating category -- Shatterzer0 23:12, 11 July 2002 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far more appropriate as a category. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR grouping them into this category Corpx 16:99, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with the category. Chubbles 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why have a list of groups that fall into an ambiguous (which the article mentiones is ambiguous) labelling at some point in their careers? Why would that be encyclopedic? Carlossuarez46 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to nu music Mandsford 01:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and listcruft. It's far easier to maintain a category. Bearian 23:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, no reason given for deletion. NawlinWiki 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Puckett[edit]

Keep - The nominator User:Dpressen not given a reason, so I cannot address his or her concerns, however I cannot see valid reason for proposing deletion. The only possible rationale would be for notability, however the article asserts notability in that COL Puckett is the current honorary Colonel of the Ranger Regiment. No other living man can make that claim. I almost suspect that it's a revenge AFD for my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Haas Was Right, as it seems kind of suspect that less than 2 hours after I make my comment a Wikipedian that's shown no interest in military articles targets one of the articles on my user page for AFD. EvilCouch 03:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps speedy as this does smell a little pointy. That said, the article could do with better sourcing to more firmly establish notability, perhaps more context to explain the significance of the Hill 205 thing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close, obviously a very notable person, article nominated to establish a point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy Tom[edit]

This article has remained a one-line stub since creation and there doesn't appear to be much room for expansion on the topic. Longhair\^talk 09:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact its a one-liner matters little. One or two WP:RS on a quick google search. Could be made into a solid stub like Whiskas Cat Food. Twenty Years 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Whiskas article doesn't have any reliable secondary sources at all. -- Longhair\^talk 09:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a couple of semi-reliable sources, but to be frank I don't think this article passes muster on notability grounds. Recurring dreams 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Twenty Years. It may not have much information, but what's there is relevant. That's the point of stubs.--Yeti Hunter 10:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The rationale given for deletion is... not a very good rationale. Lankiveil 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a major cat food brand in Australia. Googlers beware: there's both a tomato juice drink and a racehorse with the same name, so many hits are unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notable brand of cat food. It's a stub, yes, but that's hardly a valid reason to delete it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being a stub is not a valid rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. If I had a cat it would eat this ;) Giggy _U^CP 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting new argument: not just MYCATLIKESIT but myhpotheticalcatwouldlikeit. If it's that good, get some references in. people write in newspapers about pets, and pet food. DGG (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OMG! I love it :) I can just see the essay now. Orderinchaos 03:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable brand of catfood in Australia. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the Wikipedians of Australia have made their choice: Notable, No-ta-ble. All the Wikipedians, they're all of one voice: notable, no-ta-ble. JRG 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is a work in progress and this can be expanded.John Vandenberg 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability weakly indicated by secondary source at the National Library of Australia's Picture Australia [32] who have the unlikely subject field "Snappy Tom (cat food)" which contains two pictures dating back to 1980.(and as JRG has alluded to, it has an annoyingly memorable jingle :) ) Melburnian 13:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are we relying on obscure pictures from the National Library to prove the notability of one of the more well-known brands in the country? This is insane. Rebecca 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it's well-known...but I'm having a darn hard time proving it :) Melburnian 14:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the number two brand in Australia in it's market. But DGG, I don't think letters to the editor meet WP:RS. If only all stubs were so well referenced: 1 sentence claiming anything worthwhile, 1 reference.Ga rr ie 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evian Child (Passions)[edit]

Entirely unreferenced original research. Even the title is a fan invention without even reference to where on earth it came from. Fixits so far appear to be IPs removing the cleanup tags. Can anything in the article be substantiated encyclopedically, up to and including the title itself? - David Gerard 11:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this debate turns up some trove of scholarly dissertations on this unnamed person, delete. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Corpx 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced original research. Never heard the child referred to this way, and my wife is a big fan. Turlo Lomon 09:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nominator Withdrawn. After significant work by Canley to clean up the article and the eventual location of references which reasonably establish notability for the company, I am satisfied that this article now meets the required standard of WP:CORP. Kudos to those involved. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beerenberg Farm[edit]

Procedural nomination, article was previously CSD'd as G11 twice (but only one is showing in the logs for some reason??). Does not meet WP:CORP, and has no WP:RS to support any of the claims to notability made in the article. The article reads as self-promotion, and there are also paragraphs in the article which seem to be copyvio's straight from the companies website. Despite sufficient time being given after the request, the requestor has made no edits to the article since July 2 and there does not seem to be any sign that further improvments will be made. Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one for the TWinSwat. Almost died when i saw this, no asseratation of notability, google says bugger all on the topic. Twenty Years 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but rewrite - Beerenberg is highly notable - it's probably one of Australia's most famous cottage brands - but the current version of the article reads like an ad. Reliable sources would be possible to locate. Orderinchaos 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs a fairly extensive rewrite but could be brought to WP:CORP standard. I have left my earlier thoughts on the article talk page. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Need work to bring it up to standard and within WP policy. --Mikecraig 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beerenberg Farm is a notable local landmark - a family owned roadside Jam stall that evolved into a multi-millon dollar export business. The story is worth telling, the family that owns it has been on the land since the adjoining town of Hahndorf was settled. It would be better served nonetheless if the article read less like an advertisement and more like a statement of fact.--Ozzybees 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if you can find some WP:RS to support the information within the article and the claim of notability consistent with WP:CORP, then I'll happily withdraw the AfD myself before it gets to the five day mark. The problem is that all three versions I've seen of this article to date constantly fail all the WP policies outlined in my opening deletion argument, and the article was re-created 60 days ago, last edited by the person requesting creation 8 days ago, and with no sign of any WP:RS to back up any of the content or claims, one has to ask the question exactly how long should we wait for this information to be forthcoming. The only reason this article is at AfD is because it's been speedied on multiple occasions and an attempt at a prod was contested in excess of 40 days ago (with no action to correct the issues). If the creating editor feels it so important for this article to remain, I would have hoped that references would have been added well before now. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Articles for deletion is not to hold a gun to the head of the article and say "fix it up right now or it'll be deleted"; it is for you to do your research on the topic to begin with, rather than relying on the article (which may be shoddy) to tell you all you need to know. The alternative, as done here, is just downright sloppiness. Rebecca 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a basic search and I can't find anything good enough, and if I had access to Factiva I would have gone even deeper. I don't so I can't. The fact remains that all three incarnations of this article haven't met the required standard, so the question must be asked how long can should we put up with it. It's been demonstrated ample time has been allowed to fix it each time, and nothings been done. All I've seen so far are comments along the line of I know it's notable or WP:ILIKEIT, but these alone are not good enough for keeping it. It needs references to back up notability, and i've not seen any forthcoming. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion is not cleanup. The fact that prior incarnations of this article have been sucky says nothing about their potential notability, nor does it (or has it ever) provided an excuse to delete the article. You've seen numerous South Australians (who are in a position to actually verify the notability of the subject, rather people who have NFI guessing at it) argue for its inclusion, and you've absolutely no right to rudely dismiss their (damned more valid) arguments as "WP:ILIKEIT". Rebecca 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems to be plenty on Google about it, but it probably does need more sources and a lot of cleanup. Lankiveil 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Research, then nominate for deletion. Rebecca 00:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the original article regarding this subject. I am astonished by some of the comments which have been made. I must say that Beerenberg is a highly reputable South Australian business, which I would suggest the majority of South Australians would consider worthy of an article. I can only say that anyone who wants to see the article removed should reconsider their view. Also, I note that the number of "keeps" outnumbers the number of "deletes". Thewinchester should consider this before endeavouring to delete this article. Fitzpatrickjm 06:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten the article and added numerous inline citations, in my opinion, verifiable notability is asserted. I sometimes wonder what people who can't find anything on Google are actually searching for. --Canley 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Current version is a copy and paste of promotional material, making the article blatant advertising. W.marsh 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkroyal[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, essentially an advertisement and copyvio (see http://www.parkroyalhotels.com/about.html). Hux 10:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.FisherQueen (Talk) 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peru National Football Team Results[edit]

Wikipedia is not a compendium of football results. Some results can be included in the team's article, but an exhaustive list of all results is going too far. Hut 8.5 09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - loses us nothing to have this information, it's maintainable and possible to keep complete for those interested - David Gerard 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Copyvio! Corpx 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't notice that. I Googled the first sentence, but that got nothing. Hut 8.5 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accu-Tek BL9[edit]

Notability not asserted, article states that it exists and what size it is, but nothing else. Google search also confirms that it exists, but nothing else. Proposing deletion due to notability. spazure 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of {{WP:N|notability]] for this article is a major concern here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non notable gun. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1/A7 No assertion of notability; no context. Shalom ^Hello 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; horribly formatted, not notable. 'FL a RN'(talk) 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non notable Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability (no, I don't think losing a game 32-1 is an assertion of notability). NawlinWiki 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Head F.C.[edit]

This club lies in level 12 of the English football pyramid. It is thus not-notable in nature S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 per nom. Shalom ^Hello 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Paulbrock 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angelo 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but where do you get the fact that it is a level 12 team? I haven't done any digging, but reckon it is more likely to be a Sunday League team. Whichever way, it is definitely non-notable. - fchd 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Number 5 7 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dave101→talk 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Grint[edit]

Article doesn't show notability of it's subject or his team. No sources given and some statements seem POV. DraxusD 08:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for failing WP:BIO (amateur sports usually don't count) and WP:NPOV (per nom). Chuck the image too. Shalom ^Hello 13:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of clichéd classical pieces[edit]

Completely fails no original research. No references or sources. The concept of the list is inherently POV and unlikely ever to be neutral (it could equally be called "extremely popular or frequently played pieces of classical music"). Many other such cliché lists have been deleted.--Folantin 08:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Folantin. 143.210.182.197 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for inclusion are ill-defined. If you tried to rename it "List of classical pieces which have become standard cell phone ringtones" (which is pretty much the same thing), you'd see why this list is a Bad Thing. Shalom ^Hello 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I like it, and it's interesting, but these are not inclusions for criteria. I see what the author(s) are trying to accomplish, but unfortunately this lacks rigorous inclusion criteria or sourcing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Folantin said it just right. Opus33 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have seen magazine \articles about an eternal "Top 40" of classical music that exists, with Beethoven's 5th, William Tell Overture, Carmen overture, Flight of the Valkyries, Flight of the Bumblebee, Peter and the Wolf, etc. Cliche' is the wrong term for this, but I'm pretty sure that there is are sources for the Top 40 phenomenon, and probably Wikipedia articles that reference it. If there aren't any similar articles, work on this and source it. However, I think it's probably been done. To make it even better, see if you can link to a .wav file. Mandsford 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hello, Mandsford. Please be assured that there is no such thing as the "eternal top 40" of classical music! I tried doing a bit of research along the lines you suggested (download counts, compilation CD's), and there is no consensus at all. We should delete this article because whatever it contains would be POV. Our readers deserve information, not top-of-the-head opinion. Opus33 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Hello, Opus. Truth be told, I only saw something like that once, and it was an article in Saturday Review or something like that, and way back in 1982. I guess you're right, although I think that the average person is probably acquainted with only a few classical pieces (and only parts of those) and doesn't know what they're called. More people say "Hey, The Lone Ranger!" than they do "William Tell!"02:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - irretriviably POV, I'm afraid. Moreschi ^Talk 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all but one of the above. Bearian 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Supervisors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Supervisors (2nd nomination)

It has not been demonstrated that this local elected position is notable enough for justifying this list. Expert review request did not establish notability either. Previous nomination in 2005 resulted in "no consensus". -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Supervisor

Delete. The article has been cleaned up since it's previous AFD, but that has simply left it a list of non-notable names. Sorry, but not everyone who holds any elected office anywhere is notable. County Supervisors aren't exactly high profile positions. I'm sure I'm not alone when i say I can name just about every teacher I've ever had, but not a single public official at County level in my county. In addition, the people on the list who have articles are serious deletion candidates as well, with the exception of those who later went on to some higher office. -R. fiend 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per WP:BIO being elected to local office does not grant automatic notability - the folks on this list would require reliable sourcing to establish notability just like anyone else. I'm not sure a list of people who aren't prima facie notable is a good idea. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per wikipedia is not a directory (of elected officials) Corpx 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I almost suggested merge, because most articles about cities and other sub-state level organizations have lists of executives (mayors). But supervisors in California counties are more legislative than executive in nature and so akin to city council members, aldermen, or such which one generally wouldn't expect to see listed in an encyclopedia article. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Mall (Kolkata)[edit]

No claim to notability given. Nehwyn 07:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search shows quite a number of hits for this mall. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is because you searched separately for the terms "forum", "mall", and "kolkata", thus retrieving entries that do not relate to the Forum Mall, but to separate uses of the words forum and mall. (Practical example: if we were googling for a Mr John Ross Geller, see for yoursef how results would differ if you were to you just type john ross geller in Google rather than "john ross geller".) Therefore, an appropriate Google search for the subject of this AfD can instead be found here, and as you can see shows about 500 results , many of them being just listings of shopping facilities in the region. --Nehwyn 10:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bhowanipore, the parent neighbourhood? Coverage of this subject in WP:RS is a bit weak (plenty of short discussions, but no articles devoted entirely to it) (see Google News search [33]). However, The Times of India credits it with changing the whole character of the neighbourhood from a residential area to a "high street shopping destination", which makes me think this content is worth mentioning there (though not necessarily the stuff about the mall's paging system, parking spaces, and tenants). cab 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a consensus in favour of merging. --Nehwyn 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 11:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, demonstrates notability. Merge ok too Kappa 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forum is a very popular mall group in India. They have huge malls across the country from Kolkata to Kochi. Maybe we should create a new page to list all these malls.--Seraphiel 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, if done properly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Forum (shopping mall) then. All the malls are called "The Forum" per http://www.theforumexperience.com/--Seraphiel 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:RS, notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prior AfDs suggests that malls are deserving of articles. This one seems more notable than the typical mall. —Xezbeth 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Keep, Keep!!!, what can be more notable than being mentioned for its excellent layout and signage in the article "The best malls in India"? --Victor D ^PARLE 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A note to commenters: you cannot delete and redirect an article, as it violates the GFDL. —Kurykh 23:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Andrews (Heroes)[edit]

It's an article about a Heroe's character appeared in 2-3 episodes (shortly the first and little more in the last) and and didn't have an important role. At the end of her last episode, she dies. The article is more a plot description of her part in the episodes -including quotes like "You're sweet"- and nothing more. Two days ago I asked the opinion of the participants to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes but there was not much feedback.One suggestion was to merge a part of the article with Hiro Nakamura --Magioladitis 06:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As she is the reason that Hiro lost his powers for a good chunk of the season. It also showed just how Hiro's time-manipulation powers had limitations. I think if the summary were to include more about her than just from the first episode, the page could be more like Claude's article. --Piemanmoo 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of characters in Heroes. Nothing out-of-universe is asserted to establish notability to warrant a separate article. Eusebeus 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in Heroes#Charlie Andrews. Minor character, the list is perfectly adequate. Otto4711 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing is that there is much information that has to be deleted. If all the stuff is just moved to the big list the result will be the same. -- Magioladitis 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of characters in Heroes. The entry in the list is more than sufficient to cover the character's contribution to the show in proportion to her importance.--Trystan 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per Trystan and Magioladitis.Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plantocal 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most information there is useless. Moreover, she is a minor character that appears in 2 episodes with no hope to see her again in the show. Nips 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flow (singer)[edit]

Non-notable singer. No reliable sources could be found on the internet through a search engine. (ie with the search "+Flow +singer" Kylohk 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried googling "+Flow +songtitle" where "songtitle" is the title of each of her songs, and I could find absolutely nothing to suggest notability. It seems all info on her is either on her official site, on self-published sources, or in internet forums. This article should be deleted. Spazure 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons.--Fabrictramp 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definately fails WP:N. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pan-Iranism, which appears to be a similar topic. Merge stuff from history if required. Sandstein 07:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranianism[edit]

This article does not accord with the WP:NEO MoS guideline. Perhaps this should be taken to Wiktionary (I'm not familiar with their criteria), but in any case it sure isn't appropriate here. The Behnam 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed for the reasons listed above. spazure 07:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment If this page is renamed as Pan Iranianism and properly cited with WP:RS sources then, i will vote to KeepTaprobanus 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't figure out why it should be renamed "Pan-Iranianism" unless that term is somehow closely related to the neologism "Iranianism." The source he used uses the term "Iranianism." The Behnam 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It doesn't seem like a real concept.--Sefringle^Talk 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article needs more context and needs to explain what Iranianism is beyond "a monolithic tradition ... to which all the peoples of the Iranian region have made important contributions to." What little I know about Iranian culture, I do not doubt that a term like this exists, but this article is not even "half finished" and informs the reader of little. Seeing there is no context provided and reading the article does not explain what Iranianism is, deleting this may serve as a motivation to approach this article properly if recreated (if it is not fixed before this AfD closes, which I hope it is). daveh4h 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but expand. All sources provided are academic.--Zereshk 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Wikipedias. Walton^One 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swati Wikipedia[edit]

There is nothing in this article to indicate the notability of this web destination. It would be a candidate for speedy deletion, but for the controversiality of deleting Wikipedias. This google search doesn't turn up any sources, and this google news search turns up nothing at all. Without non-trivial mention in reliable, third-party published sources this article is unverifiable as well. For a similar Afd, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quechua Wikipedia. Deranged bulbasaur 05:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With less than 50 articles, the Swati Wikipedia is not ready to warrant an article of its own here on the English Wikipedia, particularly with no independent sources cited for this article. --Metropolitan90 07:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's too small to be recognized independently. Shalom ^Hello 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias (which doesn't mention it currently). Non-notable for own article. PrimeHunter 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Primehunter. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uh... has a long way to reach the list on our Main Page. For Wikipedias, size = critical mass = people are obviously interested = media will follow = notability. Not so for Wikipedias that have less than 100 articles; I don't know what interesting can we say about this site than what's already in other articles. Welcome back when it does get notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedias for now, recreate if it becomes notable (per news search) Giggy _U^CP 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I mentioned for Quechua Wikipedia: Stub articles on minor Wikipedias seem like a fine and appropriate idea to me. As a Wikipedia, I think is is notable on Wikipedia, and I hope they all get expanded. I would also favor expanding the table on List of Wikipedias to include a few more more statistics, especially number of articles.--Absurdist 07:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Wikipedias, or alternatively create a new article on African language Wikipedias and move all the content of these (and similar) articles there, with appropraite redirects. Google news archive shows quite a few reliable sources (including The New York Times) to indicate that at such a topic would be notable and encyclopedic. DHowell 04:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spotsylvania County Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside Elementary School[edit]

Non-notable elementary schools with no claim to notability - Nominated based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. E. Lee Elementary School, which is another school in the same district Corpx 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Nothing aspires to more than a stub with no assertion of notability of any kind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
Delete, nothing more than directory entries. —Xezbeth 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am putting the Virginia-school-stub tag on all these entries. I would like to see some more time given, esp. since articles were written recently and it is now summer time (read big vacation time) for articles to be improved. If they aren't in six months, afd can be revisited. Postcard Cathy 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into article Spotsylvania County Public Schools per AfD precedent. TerriersFan 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge initially, as already suggested; if/when exapnded to the point of demonstrating individual notability, can potentially be spun out into separate articles again, on a case-by-case basis. SamBC 09:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable schools. --Bryson 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge into Spotsylvania School System. Bearian 23:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per reasoning at User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal. SamBC 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedlock (band)[edit]

Originally tagged for a speedy deletion, I decided that this page has enough information to be an AFD discussion. They seem to barely qualify for WP:BAND, by having two albums. But does 'Kounterfeit Records' count as a major label? Also, this page needs some more independent links. KJS 77 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Kounterfeit Records is a small independent label based out of North Carolina with one current signing, the electronic pop band, WEDLOCK" is pretty self-definitive. I also failed to find anything in a Google News Archive search. Stylus had one, I'm willing to accept them, but they're just one source. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone knows, I myself am Neutral. KJS 77 05:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJS77. I added many more external links to the page but only on the SonicBids link can you see outside source reviews written about the band. The external links with live photos are noted as well. The other bands that gave the motivation to add Wedlock can be seen at Dangerous Muse and The Rosebuds. The latter of the two has had slight success but the first one, Wedlock has surpassed. With these entries live on Wiki, I couldn't see why Wedlock wouldnt fit on Wikipedia.StacieVan 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC) As well, understanding that Kounterfeit Records is extremely small, they have signed another artist for a 2008 release. I have still removed the links to make the Wedlock page REDLINK free. I did add an EXTERNAL LINK to the Kounterfeit Records website.StacieVan 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clear-cut per the Band notability guideline at WP:MUSIC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)

Wedlock has clearly been listed as a TOP 10 seller (right on the front page) with NetSpin. Does this not qualify #2 on the Notability requirements on the Guildlines?? It states that if the band meets ANY of these, not all or some but any, it is considered notable. Paul Allgood has a published novel which contains information regarding the music and the band ISBN978-0978789497 An Inextricable Tale. Would this not satisfy item 1 of the Notability guildlines as well?StacieVan 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I don't think NetSpin has the notability and credibility to qualify as a reliable source. As Grey Vireo Press is an e-book publisher, I don't think the book qualifies either. Self-published material is not the same as material which has met the selectivity and standards of a print publisher. --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dhartung's research. The record label is not notable, NetSpin sales are not a national chart; there's no sign of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. Basically, WP:MUSIC is far from being satisfied here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The otter agrees with the fox -- these guys fail WP:MUSIC by a longshot. No charting singles, no notable record label, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dhartung, failing WP:MUSIC. Mango juice^talk 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They appear to fail WP:MUSIC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 23:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; guidelines sez: not notable. — Coren ^(talk) 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Iranian sentiment[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anti-Persianism by Arabs

Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranianism

Much like similar "anti-X" articles [34][35][36][37][38], this article is fundamentally original research. To take a number of individual cases where someone said something was "anti-Iranian" does not justify presenting these together as a unified phenomenon. Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative, and in doing so we commit OR. The Behnam 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and precedent of the deletion of other "anti-x sentiment" articles. Most of them are just original reseatch, POV magnets. --Folantin 09:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is simuilar to Anti-Semitism, anti Iranianism is a WP:Notable subject that affects many Iranians in the diaspora on a persoanl level. Taprobanus 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article has many sources, is highly notable, and Wikipedia already has other anti-x articles, such as Anti-Semitism as mentioned above.Hajji Piruz 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For both of you, this really isn't similar to antisemitism because, unlike antisemitism, there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon. This notion is created here on Wikipedia but does not exist as such in RS. Also, the number of sources used for individual facts is irrelevant, though it would be terrible to cite in support for this article considering the number of "references" that don't actually make a claim of "anti-Iranian sentiment." The Behnam 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article appears well sourced. I counted at least 60 references. Dfitzgerald 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may "appear" that way based on a count of references. However the sources often do not ascribe "anti-Iranian sentiment" to the event; rather, an editor takes an event that he considers "anti-Iranian" and posts it into this article. That, of course, is classic OR. But I stress that this deletion is NOT about the individual facts in the article but rather about tying together even the sourced uses of "anti-Iranian" to portray a unified phenomenon. As there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting such a narrative we cannot synthesize it ourselves on Wikipedia. Maybe we can recreate such an article when Iranians get their own Anti-Defamation League and it is taken seriously. But right now we are looking at original research. The Behnam 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are several Iranian versions of Anti-Defamation League. [39] AlexanderPar 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be like the Anti-Defamation League they have to be both widely noted and also have to be an anti-defamation league. I'm not sure which organization from that page you were specifying but looking through them turns up mostly non-notable lobbies. Perhaps the most direct one, with "anti discrimination" in the title, doesn't seem to exist anymore and is linked to through the web archive. This minor issue, however, is besides the point (being a "maybe" side as it was). The Behnam 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - NIAC - National Iranian American Council is a notable organization, and they deal with many issues such as discrimination. AlexanderPar 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        While I didn't want to continue this side discussion, I can't help but note that the NIAC is not at all equivalent to the ADL, in both purpose and notability. The Behnam 19:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is even more remarkable that such an "at a glance" analysis of the article can be used to support a "strong" keep. The Behnam 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OR doesn't fly if it's someone elses research. —Xezbeth 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow this suggests that you have neither taken a close look at this article and its previous nominations nor read over the similar nominations I outlined above. Even the rare cases where the source indeed says that something was "anti-Iranian" (mostly in the 300 (film) section near the end), we cannot justify synthesizing these disparate uses into the original narrative as is done in this article. The Behnam 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh but I have read the article. Some bits may well need removing/cleaning up but that doesn't warrant killing the whole thing. —Xezbeth ^(DOSPAGWYA) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- You don't appear to understand that the OR issue here is NOT about individual facts used in the article, despite the fact that those aren't exactly "quality." The Behnam 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, your uncivil "DOSPAGWYA" link doesn't even apply here because I provided explanation in addition to links to similar cases. It may better apply for no-substance claims that use such a shortcut, such as "OR doesn't fly it it's someone elses research," which doesn't actually put anything against the nomination's core argument. It would apply for me if I had given only the reason "This article violates WP:NOR." The Behnam 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, there are many documented cases of Iranians who have become victims of discrimination, intolerance, and harassment because of their ethnic/national origins. This is one of the better articles in Category:Anti-national sentiment, the article may have problems, and we can always improve the content of article rather than delete it. AlexanderPar 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Several published scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" or "anti-Iranianism" as a notoble and unified phenomenon:

1. The Iranian community in the United States and the maintenance of Persian identity - by Y Modaressi: "For instance, the anti-Iranian feelings during the hostage crisis in America practically and psychologi- cally placed the Iranian immigrants in a very dicult situation"

2. Neo-Tribalism in Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Tribal Policies - by A Baram: "The Iraqi regime made every effort to exploit this Arab identity and encourage anti- Iranian feelings"

3. Timeliness and Appropriateness in Personal Experience Narrating - by RA Georges: "Anti-Iranian sentiment, which had been widespread earlier when Americans were held captive in Tehran, resurfaced during the TWA hijacking episode"

4. The War on Terror, Feminist Orientalism and Orientalist Feminism - by R Bahramitash: "True accounts, such as the book and movie Not without My Daughter, helped to incite racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian feelings across Europe and North America"

5. Cultural Trauma and Ethnic Identity Formation Among Iranian Immigrants in the United States - by M Mobasher: "On the other hand, the anti-Iranian atti- tudes of most Americans and the anti-Iranian media propaganda that began during the hostage crisis"

6. Identity Politics and Iranian Exiles - by H Naficy: "the fact of their own exile, and the periodic waves of anti-Iranian sentiments facing them in West"

7. Iran and the Middle East: Foreign Policy and Domestic Change - by F Halliday: "considerable sympathy in the Peninsula for the Taliban and for Osama bin Laden, all of which feeds into not only anti- American but also anti-Iranian feeling"

There are hundreds of such sources, both prints and manuscripts. - AlexanderPar 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This same sort of thing showed up during the similar "anti-X" deletion debates and doesn't justify the existence of such articles. Yes, we know that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist since some people do not like Iranians. But it is the presentation of a unified phenomenon that is original research as this narrative is not made by RS scholarly sources. The cases you present here are simply an example of how disparate uses of the term can be presented in faulty defense of the original narrative created by Wikipedians. The Behnam 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're acknowledging that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exists, that makes this a notable topic.AlexanderPar 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha, no not at all. lol, it is OR to take a bunch of disparate uses of "anti-Iranian" to present a unified topic. As the nominator from one of the similar nominations said, "Only thing that counts is reliable sources systematically discussing the existence of "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" as a consistent, unified pattern" - Now replace "Anti-Macedonian sentiments" with "Anti-Iranian sentiment." And like those other articles, this topic doesn't have sources discussing such a unified pattern. The Behnam 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I think we discussed enough about this article before. Please read the former AfDs again.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite irrelevant to the reason for the nomination. A previous "keep" AFD really isn't a reason for keeping now, but if it means anything the previous closed "no consensus" with the process muddled by ethnic-sensitive canvassing. The Behnam 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~: The page seems to be just a collection of OR and POV, aimed at fueling battles along ethnic and national lines. Just the first line, quoting Kaveh Farrokh, a prominent Turkophobe, clarifies the objective. Atabek 20:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Anti-Turkism, an article which you were involved in heavily?Hajji Piruz 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history of it [40], clearly I wasn't involved heavily in it, so WP:AGF, please. Thanks. Atabek 17:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keep it, let the topic name defame itself by expected OR and POV. Atabek 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that keeping it crappy to "defame" it is the best thing for the encyclopedia. The Behnam 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The claim that this article is original research because the sources "are not notable", is not an acceptable reason to delete the article, according to WP:JNN. This user has also just nominated Iranian women and List of Iranian wonmen for deletion in the past week. Curious, this trend of AFDs.--Zereshk 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently don't understand the argument for deletion. As it seems quaint that I have to explain it in yet another way, please read through it again and come back if you have any questions. Thanks. The Behnam 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, The Behnam. I actually did read the argument. That's why I used your own words.--Zereshk 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not! The phrase "are not notable" is not found on this page as any argument of mine! How interesting - this is the second time you have misquoted me (the prior is here [41]), so I am not sure that is very smart of me to assume that this is just an accident. "Calm down" - Haha, are you saying this to insinuate that I was not calm, even though nothing about my response was not calm? Also quaint. Anyway, even if we assume that I in some way said a statement to that effect, must I now assume that you are quote mining (or rather, "misquote mining" :-) ) to try to build a strawman? I bring this up because the central argument for deletion is 'not the "notability of the sources" but rather the lack of reliable sources that present "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon. BTW, your mention of the other AFDs constitutes an attempt to poison the well' to make people question the "faith" of my nomination, and apparently this has worked on Mandsford. This is unfortunate for the AFD, and of course it is disappointing that you again conduct yourself poorly with me (after the recent canvassing for Iranian women and nonconstructive thread on my talk page). The Behnam 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact object using "notability" of sources as the main base of your argument. e.g.1 [42] followed by [43]. Im sorry, but you cant use notability as your reason. It doesnt matter if NIAC is not as big as ADL. Your argument is still flawed because WP:JNN doesnt allow it.--Zereshk 05:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand again. That side conversation is not a critical part of the nomination and was not presented as such. It derived from a "maybe" about Iranians creating their own ADL. Lol, the NIAC isn't even used as a source anyway. I'm not sure what sort of work they've done with this concept, but that doesn't really matter here. Quite a misunderstanding on your part, Zereshk. I hope that you acknowledge this instead of clinging to the strawman... The Behnam 06:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You specifically state "Without substantial RS scholarly works" at the top of this page, i.e. NIAC is not as "scholarly" to you as ADL, for example. I dont buy your argument. Sorry.--Zereshk 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have decided to misconstrue my statement again with quote mining as the rest of the sentence is quite critical to the argument: "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon." To be honest I don't consider ADL or NIAC "scholarly" because they are simply not scholarly organizations (such as universities). They are advocacy groups. This all is aside from the point. The point is much like my full sentence - this isn't treated as a unified phenomenon by a substantial amount of academic work. Even if there were some small number of people who treated it as such it would still be WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, antisemitism is a huge deal. There are classes about antisemitism alone, many scholarly and non-scholarly books about antisemitism, ... It is probably the most famous form of discrimination. But "Anti-Iranian sentiment" is only a unified phenomenon on Wikipedia, not with the world of reliable sources. The Behnam 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP doesnt care whether or not you consider ADL or NIAC as scholarly or not. It's not your call. And your definition of "a unified phenomenon" is not a criteria on WP for deletion. In fact WP:IDONTKNOWIT states the opposite: "arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia."--Zereshk 07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the post I already made below, also in reply to you, where I say "I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant." I have no idea why you repeated your irrelevant "point." And are you still going on about that ADL & NIAC stuff? They don't really matter to this nomination; again I have no idea why you continue to bring them up. Should I suppose you have nothing real in response to the actual nomination reason so perhaps you prefer distractions...? The Behnam 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keeep as per users above. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 23:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The subject is notable, although it needs work. VartanM 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Nominator's listing of three articles for deletion and apparent personal interest makes me question good faith. What's the difference between this and "anti-Semitism"? Nor is this original research, or unsourced, or something that is unproven, as sources indicate. Anyone else besides me remember what it was like here in the U.S. in 1980? There was a ton of "anti-Iranian sentiment" back then, believe it. Mandsford 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparent personal interest? How can you let Zereshk lead you into assuming bad faith like this? Heck, I voted "weak keep" last time because I didn't realize the fundamental OR problem. Only after seeing those similar "anti-X" AFDs did I realize that to present the individual facts together without the sources themselves presenting this as a consistent phenomenon consitutes is WP:SYN. The Behnam 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keeep Of course anti-Iranian sentiment is real and needs to be documented and exposed, much like racism in general, anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism. SSZ 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, while it may exist, there doesn't seem to be a real term to describe the big idea, nor are there any scholarly opinions discussed in the article, like there are for other prejudices. It also is POV, as it discusses it by arabs and by the United States only, while showing no attempts to show a worldwide opinion outside of these two groups. Seems to violate WP:NEO.--Sefringle^Talk 05:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 05:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The user nominating this article for deletion is violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by listing (links to) other similar AFDs at the very top of this page, as demonstrative of his reason. WP:WAX clearly states: "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and deleted, ...but even here caution should be used". Also note that a badly written article is not a reason for deletion. And furthermore WP:IDONTKNOWIT states that "arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia." Whos fault is it if this user or other people have not heard of anti-Iranian sentiments? And the fact that this user has also in the past week or so nominated Iranian women and list of Iranian women for deletion is enough cause for me not to trust the claims of this user.--Zereshk 06:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well?--Sefringle^Talk 06:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Hence the fact that I didn't cite those as THE reason for deletion (such as "per x,y, and z deletion debates"). No, I linked them simply because it was pretty much the same situation with the same argument. So calling me on that is invalid. Also I do not recall mentioning anything about language differences so that it irrelevant. Calling me on that is also invalid. As for your repeat of the 'he nominated these others articles recently so he can't be trusted' comment, I must repeat that this is an attempt at poisoning the well and can thus be considered an attack. That's not cool, Zereshk. The Behnam 06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, The Behnam. Your stated reason of "Without substantial RS scholarly works presenting "anti-Iranianism" as a unified phenomenon (such as antisemitism), we are simply creating this original narrative" is a very weak argument to me. Genetic fallacy just doesnt fly here. My wikipedia motto is always build and improve articles , not delete them.--Zereshk 06:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a good thing that I'm not committing the genetic fallacy here, isn't it Zereshk? The Behnam 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think people are using AFD as a substitution for cleanup. The topic of this article is clearly notable, I am pretty sure if some of you who are arguing about it (both sides) get off the computer and go to a good library and do a search, you will find not only WP:RS online sources but also academic books or even journal articles on this subject matter. Also I agree that a lot of unconnected information has been presented as all belonging to the modern sociological concept of anti iranianism (which is nothing but a form of racism) including ancient and medieval ethnic prejudices against the ethnic group of Persians has been equated with a modern concept called anti-iranianism. People can argue that Persians are nothing but one of the ethnic groups of modern day Iran (although dominant) so anti Persian doesn’t mean automatically mean anti _Iranian. Inspite of all this shortcomings this is still is a valid subject matter that can be fully restored to an encyclopedic status. Currently it reads like a high school nay primary school student’s homework on a form of racism and many of the sections fail WP:NPOV forcefully. On a personal note about AFD’s, I patrol the AFD’s sometime and when I clearly see something that deserves to be kept and improved, I vote to keep (mostly). Most AFD that end up being deleted deserve to be deleted. But the series of AFD’s on Iranian subject matters clearly are not trivial articles that needed to be deleted. As an advice anyone interested in collaboratively improving Wikipedia will never get their point across (even when it is correct) by mass AFDing articles that are not trivial subject matters. One word CLEANUP. Thanks Taprobanus 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article already had its "keep and improve" phase after the last AFD. It really didn't resolve the basic OR problems, and of course did not resolve the fundamental OR problem. The Behnam 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be bold and do the right thing ? Taprobanus 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what this nomination is about. The Behnam 06:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful info...--Alborz Fallah 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many silimar articles for arabs, turks, ..., I strongly opposse deleting it --Ali 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taprobanus.Hetoum I 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 63 footnotes does not make original research. Also, the article is/can be NPOV. The article addresses the November 1979 Iranian hostage crisis of the U.S. embassy, from which legitimate and illegitimate Anti-Iranian sentiment can flow. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, the "count of references" method. The Behnam 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the "count the number of comments by the nominator" method? Twenty-two at this point. Now if only there were 22 votes to delete... Mandsford 02:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you object to me defending my position? Sorry for trying to reason with you people - perhaps you all are less interested in a real debate over my core nomination reason and more interested in mindless voting? I simply didn't feel like repeating my argument that a count of references doesn't say anything about original research, as many of these "references" are being used to forward original research; i.e. the ascription of "anti-Iranian" isn't actually in the source. Nor are there appropriate references support the unique narrative created on Wikipedia presenting these disparate events as part of a unified phenomenon (with this being the main argument for deletion, it is very interesting how nobody really addresses it with their "keep") Essentially a count completely fails to address original research, and I find it amazing that even another person could vote "keep" upon such a fallacious argument. The Behnam 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The request that the article be deleted because all material in the article from the 63 references is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position seems untenable. Further on my keep reasoning, a Google book search shows the topic is notable and scholarly and provides additional material that may be used to address any concerns with the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe I or anyone else said "all material" but that isn't the point. While "anti-Iranian sentiment" exists and has surfaced here and there, there isn't any significant discussion in RS of anti-Iranian sentiment as a connected phenomenon. Right now disparate uses are tied together in this article to present a unified, connected phenomenon while the RS don't make this connection themselves. The scattered mentions found in the Google Book search are simply another confirmation that people sometimes don't like Iranians, not that there is a single unified phenomenon affording its own narrative. Notice that none of them actually concentrate upon the supposed phenomenon of "anti-Iranian sentiments" and present all of these events as connected. On the other hand, there are entire books and studies devoted to antisemitism alone (Google Books too [44]). Do you see what I am saying? The Behnam 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I understand, but even if the source material is not concentrated, there appears to be enought reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable information. Once this AfD is over, there is nothing wrong with removing particular analysis in the article that has not been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic. Wikipedia NOR addresses this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is merely part of a series of anti-X sentiment.Baka man 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jreferee. - Fedayee 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This seems to be a random collection of unrelated incidents and blown-out-of-proportion, as well as fabricated events by persian nationalists trying desperately to legitimize their dogma through repetitious falsities. This article does not belong in a wikipedia, it a blog entry. MB
Keep, Behnam I had seen those articles that you handpicked in the first paragraph of this AfD (before their deletion); although some of that "group" were voted kept you didn't mention them, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian discrimination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbophobia (fifth nomination).And still the ones that were deleted are completely different from this article and were almost totally unsourced, but I can see lots of footnotes in this discussed AfD article. I still believe that these kind of article if written in a NPOV fashion can be kept and must be kept. This of course applies to this article too. --Pejman47 18:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also forgot "Anti-Hungarian sentiment" which resulted in "delete". While the individual facts themselves weren't really the OR question here, I can remove that basic OR now if necessary, though I fear that it will not resolve the underlying problem. The Behnam 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZOMG STRONG KEEP!!!!!!! - Wikipedia should always have a subject on something, even if unencyclopedic and POV-pushing; as long as, well, it's sourceable. The movie 300? Didn't you guys see that? The fact that a few very zealous Iranians think this movie has a sinister anti-Persian agenda - well, that means it must be encyclopedic. Why would we want Wikipedia to be neutral and factual; then we could no longer include fringe opinions and present them as obvious fact. As long as a few fringe people think something, it needs inclusion - even if it's not written in a POV tone. I for one think we need an article on the Anti-Semitism shown by Jesus, as well as one talking about Harry S. Truman's communist agenda (no need to write that 98% of the academic world thinks it's nonsense). Finally, I have to agree with the preponderance of other WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:PERNOM, and "count the reference" arguments above. The Evil Spartan 19:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. This is probably worthy of Raul's Brick 'O Common Sense. The only catch is, I'm not sure how many people actually got it. Duja► 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how it's any different that any other anti-racial group article.--Vitalmove 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very strong arguments by the nom. It is basicaly OR to pull together a series of isolated incidents etc and present them as a unified front. This article basically amounts to "Nobody likes us, Everybody hates us, Think I'll go eat worms" [45]. Viridae ^Talk 00:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why this article keeps coming up for nomination is due to its style, which is a cross-over between an undergraduate essay and a blog entry, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. I don't doubt that there are occasions in which some have sought to create anti-Iranian sentiments. But this article appears to make this a unified phenomenon, as if anti-Iranian attitudes in the US and in Saddam Hussein's government, anti-Shi'i attitudes and attitudes towards Persians in early Islam are part of a single phenomenon, when they are not. This is original research. The article also makes various assumptions and claims, representing them as facts, eg "Within Saudi Arabia, for example, anti-Iranian rhetoric is openly gathering strength ...", "Although Abdullah did not mention Iran by name, his comments appeared ...", etc. Some anecdotes are blown out of proportion, eg the hiring of a teacher in Baghdad, which is not a particularly notable example of xenophobia.

I am reluctant to vote for deletion as there is a need for this information (even if it is merged with other articles), but am mindful that previous AfDs have come to the same conclusion - that the article's principle problem is OR and POV - and little is done about it. Those working on this article do not appear to have understood the conclusions reached on previous AfDs.

I have some suggestions for the editors of this article. It may be useful to restructure the article to cover themes (political, social, cultural, religious manifestations of anti-Iranian prejudice/discrimination/persecution) rather than by listing sentiment by origin. For instance, religious causes of anti-Iranian sentiments may be related to Zoroastrianism (conquest of Persia), the Shia theocracy, and general Islamophobia (eg anti-Muslim attitudes in the US). A section on anti-Iranian sentiments related to culture could be related to prejudice against Persians. Political manifestations could be related to Iran's relations with other countries, eg the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. It is also important to state the difference between the expression of a prejudice and persecution. There may be some anti-Iranian prejudice among some Americans, but Iranians are not persecuted in the US. These changes could overcome the problem the article has with synthesising a range of disparate manifestations into a single concept of "anti-Iranianism".--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course racism and discrimination exists by the US Government's own admission: U.S. Sues Merrill Lynch Over Treatment of Iranian SSZ 14:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice is not the same as persecution.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 15:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comments here. We are talking about "anti-Iranian sentiment". The case I refer to above is about ACTIVE discrimination and termination of contract by Merrill Lynch of an Iranian Muslim employee based, solely on the fact that he was of Iranian origin. SSZ 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my entire comment. I said that it is important to distinguish between varying degrees and types of anti-Iranian sentiment in order to make the article clearer.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article should distinguish between 1. Persecution by the US Government, if any, 2. Persecution by other organization (religious, corporate, special interests groups, etc.), 3. Propaganda and diffamation in the media, 4. Active discrimination (as practiced by Merrill Lynch above), 5. Passive discrimination, (ie, housing, lending, etc) 6. Prejudice, 7. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion at the work place, 8. Racism and harrassement in general based on name, race or religion in public places (bus, restaurant, shopping centers, cinema, etc). SSZ 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are adequate categories, but ultimately this would be a matter for the article's talk page if it is not deleted.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The proposal is based on OR which is non-sense. User:The Behnam wrote: "this really isn't similar to antisemitism because, unlike antisemitism, there is no substantial body of scholarly work presenting "anti-Iranian sentiment" as a unified phenomenon.". This is simply wrong. Dear User: The Behnam, Why do you assume scholarly works are only done in English language and by Americans like you? A simple google search for Antisemitism in Persian will end in nearly 200 hints! For Anti-Iranian sentiment, a simple search will lead to half a milion hints, more than 100 times more than Antisemitism. Obviously Anti-semitism is a notable article in Persian wikipedia and its deletion is not justified. The same is true for Anti-Iranianism in English wikipedia. Sangak ^Talk 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:The Behnam's double standard in taging Iranian articles for deletion has made me concerned recently. The user selectively and frequently tagged Iranian and only Iranian articles for deletion while he/she contributes to similar articles of other countries. The examples are the article on women in Iran. And in his new effort, he came to conclusion that among Category:Anti-national sentiment, the Iranian article is OR!! That's a bit strange. Sangak ^Talk 18:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first. If it makes you feel any better, I have also been looking at anti-Hinduism to see if it follows the same OR pattern of tying a bunch of isolated incidents into a phenomenon. The Behnam 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that the burden is on the you, the person who wants to keep the article, to prove that this article is NOT an original narrative created by stringing together disparate uses of "anti-Iranian sentiment" and presenting them as a unified phenomenon? After all of these days of deletion debate I still haven't encountered an actual response to my central reason for nomination. Most responses just insist that "anti-Iranian sentiments" exist, which I never contested anyway. However, the mere existence of dislike for Iranians does not mean that there is a single phenomenon of "anti-Iranianism" that can be presented as one narrative, yet Wikipedia creates this unique narrative. This synthesis violates WP:NOR. The Behnam 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have not answered my original point. In responce to your reply to my "PS": your comment is contradictory. On one hand you claim that "I happen to do mainly Iran-related editing so I address Iran-related stuff first." On the other hand, you claim that the burden is on people like me!!! Sorry, I don't buy such arguments. Obviously you have the right to spend your time and to put effort in deleting Iran-related articles. That is not against any wiki-policy. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Behnam has every right to put articles up for deletion and you should assume good faith. Even if the article is not deleted, his comments should be taken seriously by the editors of this article in order to improve it and make it look more like an encyclopaedic entry.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! I know very well many of those who voted for deletion of this article in the past and in this current debate. We will meet you again in future deletion proposal too. I suggest you to put Anti-Arabism for deletion if you care about wikipedia quality. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have not yet cast a vote on this article. I did not vote in the previous AfD, but voted to delete the version of this article when it was entitled "anti-Persianism by Arabs", because it was an obvious POV fork and was filled with original research. I later withdrew my vote for deletion following a move towards compromise in the article's content, including a change in the article's title. So, I don't understand why you are ordering me to put Anti-Arabism up for deletion in order to remain consistent or that you are suggesting it should be deleted in retaliation. Many editors are tired of the ethnic-based tit-for-tat attitude that affects all Middle East articles. Judge this article on its merits and demerits, not on ethnic associations.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tit-for-tat attitude?! I have never put any arab-related article for deletion (nor any other Iranian wikipedians). My point is quite relevant. My question is that if some users are tired of Anti X-ism articles why they do not take any action in deleting them all together??!! This is the third time Anti-Iranism article is proposed for deletion while neither Anti-Arabism nor Anti-Turkism, anti-Americanism have been suggested for deletion even once. This is double standard. Sangak ^Talk 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Grandmaster 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apparently the "norm" only applies to this article and not Anti-Turkism. Sangak ^Talk 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or apply the Daniel Brandt solution—merge to relevant articles where the other side of the story can be heard. As it stands, the article is a hopeless essay mixing apples and oranges from throughout the history, effectively stripping the underlying causes of the conflicts and presenting only the end result—supposed anti-Iranian sentiment—as a given fact. This is a clear violation of WP:SYN: the article cherry-picks the facts from sources which describe the anti-Iranian acts, and reaches an implicit conclusion that the anti-Iranian sentiment is a historic constant. It is unclear how WP:NPOV can be even reached with this concept. Apart from excellent arguments by Ahwaz above, let me briefly go through the article's contents:
- by Pan-Turkists: we have a couple of quotes by Farrokh and Harandi (the latter clearly not-unbiased) who mentioned the term, then a bunch of uncited POVs
- by Arabs:a section on ethnic slur "Ajam" (well, I suppose that every culture X which clashes with culture Y has an ethnic slur for Y)
- In early & later Islam: this is better referenced, but I suppose a POV-fork from Islamization in Iran and Islamic conquest of Persia; it's unclear how much the supposed sentiment is related with Zoroastrianism and how much with Shi'a–Sunni schism.
- Now we have a leap of a couple of hundred years, vaguely addressing pan-Arabic nationalists, and focusing on certain Satia Al-Husri.
- Another leap focused on Iran-Iraq war and Saddam Husein. Well, I suppose that if countries X and Y are at war there's plenty of hate generated, isn't it?
- Now we have a cultural leap to the US, where—I'm sure everyone would agree—the anti-Iranian sentiment has entirely different root causes, which I'll spare explaining here. Later, it focuses on Hollywood movies with historical topics. We have United States-Iran relations article, don't we?
In sum, all of the Arabian stuff can—and should—find home at the Iran-Arab relations, written in summary style. It's not in a good shape, and looks more like Foreign relations of Iran than a good overview. But it could be a place to start. All the U.S stuff should go to United States-Iran relations. This is a POV-fork of several articles (no matter which one came first); it's an essay in violation of WP:SYN. Just like most other Anti-X articles. Duja► 09:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that parts of this article could be merged with existing articles and that in its present state it is poorly written. I just wonder whether the article can be rescued. Previous AfDs that have called for NPOV and a serious clean-up have not led to significant progress, which suggests the article can only ever be disparate collection of events brought together under the umbrella of "sentiments". The problem is that there is a sense of "ownership" of this article, which makes it difficult if not impossible to edit and improve in any meaningful way. Those defending the article need to come up with better arguments to The Behnam's comments instead of casting aspersions. This AfD should not be about winning votes but winning arguments.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article must be expanded to include not only hostilities toward Iranians and Iranian culture, but also any hostility toward Iranian regime. Please see the following: "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture or people of the United States." In countless number of Iranian government documents, US has been accused of Anti-Iranism. Sangak ^Talk 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes hostility to the Iranian regime? Would you classify criticism of the Iranian regime as anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments again and you will get your answer. Sangak ^Talk 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them again and it is not clear to me. I'll ask you again, does criticism of the Iranian regime constitute "anti-Iranianism"? And what is the delineation between hostility and legitimate criticism? You are suggesting the article be broadened to include opposition to Iran's government, but you have failed to state clearly what you mean. Is Akbar Ganji anti-Iranian, is Shirin Ebadi anti-Iranian, is Ayatollah Borujerdi anti-Iranian, is Reza Pahlavi anti-Iranian?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple. 1. As per anti-americanism article. (as I mentioned above) 2. The distinction between criticism and hostility is not a problem specific to the government. It is relevant to all other issues mentioned in Anti X-ism articles. 3. This is again another double standard in wikipedia. I can remember how many Americans were against including US hostility toward Iranian government in this article. Very same wikipedians simply ignore the very first statement in Anti-Americanism article. 4. Your examples (Ebadi, Ganji etc) are not a major challenge to my argument. This is trivial for any nation. 5. I personally do not consider most of US attitudes toward Iranian regime as anti-Iranianism. But that is what Iranian regime claims. Iranian regime's viewpoint is notable and need to be covered in wikipedia in a balanced way. Sangak ^Talk 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The title of the article is POV. The correct term is Anti-Iranism which is the accurate translation of the word in Persian. The term is also used in English media. This is in-line with other Anti-X isms: Anti-Arabism, Anti-Turkism, Anti-Americanism. Sangak ^Talk 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find only 80 hits on Google for "anti-Iranism"[46], while "anti-Iranianism" scores over 1,000 hits[47].--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Anti-Iranism anti-Iran sentiment has been growing, in part, thanks to continued effort of US VP Dick Cheney and the ongoing war in Iraq. I can only envision this article growing and wish that the energy spent on trying to delete this article was instead put to improving it. Benjiboi 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Just because an article needs to be developed and made more accurate is really no reason to delete it. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very common phenomenon in the Arab press. I watch Arab TVs, it makes me ashamed to see so much anti-semetic and anti-Iranian commentry on air these days, that refer to Iranians collectivly with dragatory names like "majous" (fire-worshieprs), "safawis, "false mulsims" and other dragatory names in Arabic. (for an example, see this English transcript: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1347)AhvaziKaka 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Jinian. NawlinWiki 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumosity.com[edit]

several users have tried to mark this page for deletion various ways for various reasons, including filing an incomplete AfD listing. I'm just completing this nom to put the matter to rest. DMacks 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now!. Looks like advertisement to me. a204801 10:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I don't like spam. No third-party references. Clarityfiend 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The site officially launched on July 11, 2007... wait, what? No evidence of notability per WP:WEB. No WP:RS, just links to the company's site. The one possibly legitimate reference has little to do directly with the subject of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, and although the POV of the article is technically neutral, it still seems to serve as nothing more than an advert. spazure 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, notability for website not established. WegianWarrior 07:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-spam}}. It was created YESTERDAY?!?! Definitely not notable. I've had a website on Angelfire for five years now, and even it doesn't meet notability guidelines (my site, that is, not Angelfire as a whole). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to A Piece of the Action (Star Trek). Walton^One 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzbin[edit]

Make-believe game used as a plot device in a single episode of Star Trek, mentioned in passing a couple of times later. But, no real-world notability. Additionally, it has been tagged for cleanup and lack of reliable sources since April (and has lacked sources long before then). Redirected to the episode in which it appears, but redirect was reverted by another editor; bringing it to AfD to reach consensus. --EEMeltonIV 04:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Concur with nom that it's not notable on its own. Not sure AfD is the place for this type of debate though. DMacks 04:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a more appropriate venue to resolve these bits, then by all means I'm game. I've tried talk-page discussions in the past, but these tends to be such low-traffic and -interest pages that it devolves into a noisy back-and-forth. My one stab at RfC was pretty slow -- in fact, I don't remember whether there was ever a response. --EEMeltonIV 04:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay then, wasn't sure what else was tried. DMacks 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect a short summary of the game. I have actually seen this played at a con (sad, I know) so it has fandom currency, but that's really it. --Dhartung 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary and redirect to the episode article. More noted within the fandom than most Star Trek trivia, but not attributed in the article, and a Google search shows (in the first two or three pages, just a quick check) only fansites and blogs. I wouldn't give "academic paper" status to an underclassman's calculation of the probability of being dealt a certain hand. Barno 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading User:Chimene's post below, I tried this Google search on "conditional modifier"+game. It looks like the concept and wording are applied in some cases on game-chat sites and blogs, but I don't know if there are attributable sources enough for a Conditional modifier games or Conditional modifier (games) (to disambiguate from the grammatical meaning) article. If enough sourcing is found for such an article, parts of Fizzbin should be merged into it, but not every rule heard in the script. If that merge is made, I think the Fizzbin title should still redirect to the Trek-episode article rather than to the conditional-modifier article. Barno 20:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as much info as possible to the episode article. I'm shocked and appalled that I can't find any scholarly references for it... No way for me to justify a keep vote, then; otoh I used the article for reference purposes myself a few weeks ago so would hate to see it entirely deleted. Question: Memory Alpha would be a good place for the content, but they use a Creative Commons license rather than GFDL and I don't know how the two differ - would it be permissable to copy the Wikipedia content to Memory Alpha? --Zeborah 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, while not provably a copyvio, appears to be a (minor) expansion of an article published in a syndicated Star Trek magazine around 1977, which was admitted to be at best fanon and at worst total OR. Given that the reference in the episode makes it clear that it is a fictive (that fizzbin, as such, does not exist in the Trek (or real) universe), it is clearly inapparopriate for Wiki~. At best, it might merit a one-line mention in a theoretical article Funny words used on Star trek; the present article ought to be deleted. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fizzbin (1968) may be the first example of a "conditional modifier" card game -- one in which the allowable play may be changed by external factors (see the Dragon Poker article for a good definition of "conditional modifier"). Have not YET been able to find anything else on-line on the origin of "modifier card game". Fizzbin is older than Dungeons and Dragons (rules first published in 1974); Asprin's Dragon Poker and Pratchett's Cripple Mr. Onion may be spoofs of the Fizzbin concept. Fizzbin is certainly older than Mornington Crescent. Calvin and Hobbes "calvinball" game is an example of a non-card game which is based entirely on the "conditional modifier" concept. IF Fizzbin is the source of this concept, it represents the genesis of a whole new class of games. This seems sufficient to retain the article as is, without merging or redirecting. Although we agree it would benefit from editing to include the influences we think exist. Perhaps what is really needed is an article on "Conditional modifier games"! (What brought me to this discussion was an allusion to the game in a political blog; it's part of the culture. I have so far found the term used as an adjective relative to religious, programming, mathematical and astrophysical discussions online -- and I'm obsessing about still looking.) --Chimene 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - With "A Piece of the Action" - This isn't a real card game. Whatever "official rules" are out there have been made up by Captain Kirk in the episode and expanded upon by fans. Cyberia23 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fizzbin was used by Kirk as a distraction. the details of the game as described by Kirk is essentially trivia, and merging to the episode article would bloat it with trivial detail. I'll note that a Star Trek magazine published some rules for Fizzbin circa 1976 as I recall playing it in highschool with friends. -- Whpq 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but no problem recreating with better references. The Los Angeles Times wrote on August 21, 2006, " For "Star Trek" illiterati, Fizzbin is a mythical card game created by Capt. Kirk, with rules so arcane and ever-changing that it befuddles unfriendly aliens on Sigma Iotia II. (It's such a classic TV moment that it has its own Wikipedia entry.)" So much for that. I would suggest rewriting the article to include Fizzbin the band and using the following information for the new article:

Google books
Los Angeles Times (August 21, 2006) They're playing Fizzbin with the solar system - The plutocracy deliberates. Section: California Metro' Page 10.
Kroll, John J. (June 16, 1997) Cleveland Plain Dealer Nerves of steel needed to play. Section: Personal Finance; Page 1D
Gettelman, Parry. (May 22, 1998) Orlando Sentinel Time's right for Fizzbin. Section: Calendar; Page 8
Anderson, Jamie J. (May 28, 1999) Orlando Sentinel Fizzbin. Section:Calendar; page 12.
Google news

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appears to be the best choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayonnaise Rubbing[edit]

No support for this being any sort of wide-spread activity (one edit summary from only contributor says he's only aware of it at one college). The included cites support certain ideas, but not the topic of the page itself...RS for the idea have been promised for several days now meanwhile others have failed to find any. I call HOAX/NFT DMacks 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how many references are produced on the health benefits of mayonnaise (yech) they will fail to justify this article. Deranged bulbasaur 04:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about the "bachelor/healing" bit, but mayo is mentioned in women's magazines as part of a natural skin care regimen. (It's more commonly used for the hair, though, and it used to be a homemade suntan "bronzer".) Probably best to write off as unsalvageable WP:OR though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That use of mayonnaise could be included in the main article. The fact that something is used in a certain way does not necessarily confer notability on the method of use itself. By that rationale, we'd have an article on epsom salt soaking and one on acetomenophen eating. Deranged bulbasaur 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deranged bulbasaur . Greswik 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with everyone above. I have definitely heard of kids doing this on college campuses. I think that the article should be cleaned up and the facts checked, but I think this is a real phenomenon and should be preserved.129.21.37.42 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Noting that "I've heard of it" is in no way a persuasive argument or indicative of notability. Otto4711 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wryspy 16:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Eusebeus 17:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLLOCKS. With mayo. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and take a close look at the creator's only other article contribution also. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: doesn't look like enough for its own article (never heard of it before the digg.com link to save the article). If anything, perhaps the mayonaise article can include some information on health benefits. RandomStuff 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually speedy deleted an earlier version. It may or may not qualify as patent nonsense but I see no reason to not view this as pure vandalism. Pascal.Tesson 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NOW episodes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory Corvus cornix 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but TV series have episode lists that fit into their infoboxes. Tim Long 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NOW (TV series). The parent article is not so large that it can't hold an episode list. WP:NOT#DIR states that Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The episodes of a TV series are closely associated with each other. Otto4711 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently missed Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. Corvus cornix 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I disagree with turning an encyclopedia into a TV guide, but I think the current consensus is to keep these "List of ____" episodes. This one just needs to be prettied up to look like List_of_lost_episodes Corpx 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I still need to work on this article, but I'll hold off until the deletion tag is removed, if it is. Tim Long 04:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Bleh, Copyvio of this! Corpx 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Let's give Tim Long time to make it into a real article. If it stays as is, then it can be deleted. CitiCat 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual episodes of a TV series may not be notable, but in aggregate it's hard to see how something with such wide currency could avoid notability. Deranged bulbasaur 04:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus does not trump policy. WP:NOT is policy. Electronic program guides are prohibited. This is an electronic program guide. Therefore policy requires that this be deleted. Corvus cornix 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needn't be. It's just formatted as such. The entries could be divested of their dates and reformatted to be more encyclopedic. Deranged bulbasaur 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete My previous contention is moot. It's a copyvio. The {{holdon}} rationale about PBS being government controlled doesn't hold water. The association is plenty loose enough that works produced by PBS are not automatically in the public domain. If that were true, their programming itself would be PD, and it's not. Deranged bulbasaur 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I state on the holdon tag, the text consists of just short summaries and comes from a government site (PBS) anyway. Tim Long 05:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PBS is a "non-profit, private corporation " Corpx 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know what "public" means? Tim Long 05:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public does not mean its in public domain. Look at the © at the bottom of that page Corpx 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not an electronic program guide, it's an episode list. Tim Long 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge. I'd suggest keeping it and merging it with the series' mainpage, although some effort to make it not a direct copy of a pre-existing work should be included (as well as some wikification, both for readability and usefulness)spazure 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 persistantly non-notable individual, and a persistant abuse of process to keep the article about oneself. The only individual here calling for retention is the author and very likely Mr. Babenek himself. This also falls under db-repost.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Bambenek[edit]

Procedural nomination; I have no opinion. There have been revert wars with speedy tagging, and it seems this article has suffered from WP:COI issues in the past. User:DGG declined a speedy request yesterday, but someone has tried again today, so the only sensible action is to submit the article for community review. Shalom ^Hello 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme speedy delete and salt!!!!!, recreation of this article is bordering on disruption. Corvus cornix 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sheer strength of the above opinion indicates unobjectivity. The ones who shout the loudest about deletions often do so with an intent for suppression, not a better encyclopedia. -- Archibald16 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The non-notable egotist is trying to use Wikipedia to make himself famous, and will not stop. That's what makes me want "suppression", just because the ego needs to be taken down. Corvus cornix 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the violation of WP:FAITH and sheer animosity of this comment prove my point. -- Archibald16 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first speedy was bad faith, but fine. The second speedy was obviously bad faith. The third was vandalism. Not sure there is much to this except ill-will towards the subject. Apparently he pissed off a bunch of techheads at the University of Illinois over iPhones apparently [48].-- Archibald16 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Archibald16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4 and why the heck wasn't this salted? Failed DRV about a zillion times, appears to be created by a sock, or at least a SPA. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; I couldn't guess why (that particular person), but this is obviously repeated vandalism. — Coren ^(talk) 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is article creation vandalism? Aren't we stretching that definition a bit? -- Archibald16 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's vandalism when an article is re-created over and over and over again after having been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I tried to steer clear of this in my nomination statement per WP:DNFT, but whoever closes this discussion needs to know that Archibald16 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet as reported here. Shalom ^Hello 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I saw that and commented on it... they should also know that no evidence was made to substantiate that and after examination none was found. It was a bad faith nomination. The sheer hatred that John Bambenek causes among wikipedians that the storm an AFD and vote more in the first 5 minutes of the AFD than most AFD's have in 5 days speaks to notability. Of course, it helps that he's well-circulated and been on the radio and tv many times as well. -- Archibald16 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Notable. On Wikipedia, as a repeat offender and Grand Master 3rd dan of Vanispamcruftisement. I'm all for good faith, but come on! — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Not a notable person in any means. Kill the article so it doesn't come back. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Speedy delete What's going on? It would be nice if someone could link the article's deletion reviews and such so that the arguments raised there could be taken under advisement. If all the claims of mainstream media appearances and article publications are true, I have a hard time seeing what the problem is. There must be something to this, to have attracted such an abrupt storm of comments. If it was speedied, I don't see its recreation as vandalistic. If it was Afd'd why not just Db-repost? Deranged bulbasaur 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] Corvus cornix 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=== Notability, Books, Articles, and some such === Header Disabled Corpx 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Because it was requested, here is a brief synopsis of where he's written, what he's published and what media outlets deal with him. He's been on the Daily Show (as indicated by the image) as well as ABCNEWS. He's also been on several talk radio shows as an interviewed guest, though I don't know where online I can point people to for verification.

I've just checked Lexis-Nexis and there are over 300 articles written by him readily available and searchable from various syndiacted wire services.

Quick Web Links:

The NYTimes article [57] (this was a front page article he was in)
Washington Post [58]
eWeek [59]
PCWorld [60]
InfoWorld [61]
SearchSecurity [62]
Consumer Affairs [63]
C-Net [64]
State of Oregon [65]
his own college [66]
Seatlle Times [67]
LA Times [68]

ISBNs to edited collections he's contributed to:

Botnet Detection: Countering the Largest Security Threat, Series: Advances in Information Security , Vol. 51, Lee, Wenke; Wang, Cliff; Dagon, David (Eds.) ISBN: 978-0-387-68766-7 Oracle Security Step-by-Step (Pete Finnigan, ; ISBN: 0974372749; Paperback; 2004-04) Securing Windows 2000 Step by Step (Jeff Shawgo, ; ISBN: 0967299292 -- Archibald16 03:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point to which of these links he is the primary focus of the article. Corvus cornix 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you change your vote if I could anyway? This article is exclusively about him [69]. The other articles are mainly citing him as an expert, which is valid for notability. And again, Lexis has about 300 articles by him. -- Archibald16 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing him as an expert does not grant notability. See WP:NOTE. That other article is about "State scrutinizes employees' test times". I dont think the article is about him. Corpx 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx, read the article... he's the employee they're talking about, he's the one in the video attached to the article. -- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a state employee who refuses to sign a document is not enough to grant notability to a person. Corpx 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing the defintions again... you wanted an article with him as the subject, this is such an article... and it's not that he didn't sign the form, it's that he also filed a lawsuit, but again, this isn't the only thing we're talking about here... the sum total of all of this is notability. -- Archibald16 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those articles have to be about him, not mention him or quote his thoughts about a subject. See WP:NOTE for more infoCorpx 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE Criteria: Significant, reliable, independent sources. I mentioned ABC News... here are four sites off the top of my head, all very popular, that are not only independent but adverserial, and they have coverage of bambenek. It meets all four notability requirements in WP:NOTE.

Independent sources covering John Bambenek:

ScienceBlogs [70]

Feministing [71]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee [72]

Archpundit [73]

-- Archibald16 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give us links to reliable sources, not search engine results. And what is your connection to Bambenek? Corvus cornix 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you google lists so you can see the number of times those sites link to him. The DCCC is hardly a blog. And for political commentary, you'd imagine most of the hits would come from blogs. My connection is that I read his stuff and I'm a fan. -- CCCC

Those are all blogs - Blogs dont count as reliable sources Corpx 04:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read WP:RS... blogs aren't immediately discounted, especially when they are very prominent and respected blogs. -- Archibald16 04:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs. Also, the Democratic Campaign Committee blurb seems to just be an elaborate way of linking his blog. Deranged bulbasaur 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DCCC was criticizing something he wrote, it only makes sense they'd link to it. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability: : More Notability criteria, specifically:

1) The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. (In this case, many media outlets treat him that way, and he's published as such, including giving presentations to DHS on computer security).

Other criteria could nominally apply also. -- Archibald16 04:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Let's just cut to the chase... I'm finding arguments to prove notability, people are finding excuses to call it not-notable. Is there a point to us wasting our time debating? I mean, you've all voted, is this a foregone conclusions that this article needs to die and no debate will matter? If so, just let me know so I can stop wasting time? -- Archibald16 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a vote. I'm reviewing my position now, so hold up :) Corpx 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt. That notability guidline is for academics, and while he is an academic, it's not in that sense that he's being quoted as an expert, but from his corporate position. This falls under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Criteria for notability of people (Creative professionals), and none of these articles meet that guideline that I can see. CitiCat 04:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Hundred Monkeys[edit]

Non-notable corporation with a few notable customers. Just borderline enough to avoid CSD, but strong probable conflict of interrest (article created, edited and de-prodded by SPA). Sources are provided, but coverage is incidental or trivial (and the articles do not have the corporation itself as the topic). — Coren ^(talk) 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the company meets WP:CORP. From what I can see, there are a few mentions in print here and there, but mostly in the sense of company naming in general and not about the company itself. The references are scant and don't seem to meet the multiple, non-trivial aspect of WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Kinu said. Eusebeus 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and Kinu.--JayJasper 12:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic Comedians[edit]

Ample precedent, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic American entertainers. I don't think there's such a thing as Vatican comedy but there might be. Bulldog123 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just not a natural intersection of topics. What would be the impetus for perusing a list of comedians of a given religious denomination? Deranged bulbasaur 03:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable juncture. I don't see List of Methodist comedians, List of Episcopalian comedians, List of Baptist comedians... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish we had some way to do set operations on categories and display the result. That way, this sort of category would be completely unnecessary. You want Catholic comedians? Do Catholics ∩ Comedians. I'm always in favor of the technical solution when there is one. Deranged bulbasaur 03:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mereological operations would make even more sense, so you could rope in articles that are in a subcategory of each category where the subcategory itself is not shared between them. Deranged bulbasaur 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - mw:Extension:DynamicPageList? Don't think it's installed over here though ... cab 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless shown by reference to WP:RS that this is a WP:N intersection. And even if it is, it should be restricted to comedians whose Catholicism is relevent to their comedy routine or other professional activities. cab 03:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Replace with category~~ Corpx 03:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure but couldn't that be WP:OCAT? Roman Catholic Comedians? Bulldog123 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think this might be a violation of "Trivial intersection". (same thing should apply here) Corpx 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also a violation of "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference". --Metropolitan90 07:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously...per nom. Jmlk 1 7 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation. This list sucks and is useless, but religion andcomedy are not trivial intersections. Many, many comedians base much of their act around their religion, other members of their religion, and their religious upbringing; it isn't in any way a trivial intersection. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial intersection. Useight 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 18:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be a sub-category of the Comedians category.--JForget 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment Why is this any more unacceptable than Category:Jewish American comedians? Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 00:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be deleted too! Corpx 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can actually make that happen, I'd be amazed; see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish if you need some examples of how those debates usually go. cab 08:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that being Catholic had anything to do with the act of any of the comedians. Not that I haven't seen routines where references are made to papal infallibility, fish on Friday, St. Christopher's medals, etc., but as with Bob Hope, this is about people who happened to be comedians and Catholic. With Jewish American comedians, Who ARE these people? I'd say the same there too, unless the comedian made his Judaism part of the comedy routine. Mandsford 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connect Yorkshire[edit]

WP:SPAM across the article and user namespaces. The organization has existed for just five years locally, and the external links do nothing to assert true notability. Shalom ^Hello 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be much notability lurking between all those buzzwords. This google search doesn't yield anything particularly promising, just blogs and first-party sources. Deranged bulbasaur 02:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Google dnews search finds some articlesthat give notability to this companyCorpx 03:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.Saganaki- 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the article won't assert notability, and we aren't finding much, then it's most likely not notable enough for an entry. spazure 07:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that asserts notability per WP:CORP or WP:ORG. Eusebeus 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Write Open Story[edit]

I don't understand what the title has to do with the article, but I do know that "Flying Bibleman" only gets 11 Google hits. Doesn't seem particularly notable. Corvus cornix 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. When I first did the Google search, I got 11 hits. When I click on that link, I get 52 now. Corvus cornix 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I get 8. :) Corvus cornix 23:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a mildly interesting story, but not encyclopedia-worthy; perhaps a footnote to a broader article on the history of efforts to carry Christianity or other religions to natives. --JohnRDaily 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an interesting story which appears to have a historical background. With a good rewrite/downsize and general clean-up, its importance should show through. --Stormbay 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING isn't a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. The article's name appears to have nothing to do with it, so it should probably be called "The Flying Bibleman". A few additional references would probably help its cause for notability, too. spazure 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The title is bizarre, but beyond that, there is no assertion of notability per WP:ORG. Eusebeus 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. I'd also like to propose that any article in which "Humble Beginnings" appears as a heading be subject to speedy deletion. Deor 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some reasonable sources. If one looks past the length and the writing, it may seem less like a delete and more like an article worth saving with some good editing input. I find a sufficient level of notability in the sources but agree that the article reads badly. --Stormbay 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the Flying Bibleman Web site, the only substantive sources I've found (and the only ones linked in the article) are on the site of the Bible Society, with which the FB is affiliated. I'm not seeing any reliable, third-party published sources. Deor 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Sovereign[edit]

I'm not sure why this article should be deleted, but I'd like a "reality check". There appears to be a WP:COI given the equality between the article writer and his/her username or userpage. At least one editor in the page history has questioned the veracity of this article, in spite of the varied references. I also find it very suspicious that this article was born in a single edit, but I could not find anything in the deletion log. Shalom ^Hello 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3); here's the answer to your wondering: it's a copy&paste with alterations of Lady Sovereign. — Coren ^(talk) 03:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As an added note, there's a hint when a page created in july has a dated tag from june!) — Coren ^(talk) 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a quick question; I've hit a rash of those (copy-paste-alter) in the past week or so; is this something common or have I just been lucky to not have spotted many to date? — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Fails CSD G3. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete too. Failure of CSD G3! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps I don't fully understand the speedy delete criteria, but I don't see how this should be deleted. Yes, there may be a COI, although WP:COI itself states that occasionally an exception can be made. The article is fairly well-written, does not seem to have any issues with blatant POV, and it's referenced well enough to assert notability. Furthermore, I'd be more inclined to believe that the original author merely didn't understand redirects, and the other page Lady Sovereign was an attempt to have the article accessible under both names. I say keep this, delete Lady Sovereign, then add a redirect for Lady Sovereign to point to this article. Also, perhaps we should suggest that in the future, Chelsea should leave the editing to individuals other than herself. spazure 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nevermind. Lady Sovereign has been around longer, and has been edited by many users other than Chelsea. For this reason, I agree to the speedy delete. All we really need is a redirect, not a full copy of the article. spazure 08:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; you might also want to note that it's disputed that Lady Sovereign ever used the name "Chelsea", and that all sources of that article use "Lady" and never so much as mention "Chelsea". I doubt User:Chelsea Sovereign is really related to Lady Sovereign. — Coren ^(talk) 13:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books critical of Islam[edit]

Inherently POV list, unreferenced. I started cleaning this list by checking the articles, but soon noticed that people put here everything what is controversial, rather than "criticism". Not to say that this list is redundant, because there is a category with exactly the same name. Mukadderat 01:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Unless cited, categorizing these books into this category would as Original Research. Correct me if I'm wrong here. Corpx 02:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)~~ No need to have identical lists and categories. Corpx 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the OR angle. It's a rare book that will uniformly criticize everything about its particular topic, so this list most likely contains books that are critical of some doctrines or social effects of Islam while perhaps praising others. It's inherently OR to extrapolate from a criticism of, say, Islamic extremists to a criticism of Islam. Most of these books are not critical of Islam necessarily, but rather have a narrower focus. By this metric, many of the Pauline epistles could be listed as criticisms of Christianity. Deranged bulbasaur 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To propose a positive solution: it would make more sense, I think, to list books about the social impact of Islam, or about Islam and ethics, or about Islamic theology. Within such a list, one could include different perspectives on the various issues without projecting the works along one simple axis or putting words in the mouths of their authors. Deranged bulbasaur 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references that mention that the books are indeed critical of Islam, is included in the articles. -- Karl Meier 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is that in majority of cases there are not. Mukadderat 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a POV list, if you have POV issues with the page, take it to the talk page of the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV or not, the category makes this list redundant. utcursch | talk 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Utcursch Taprobanus 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another bad, POV-ridden OR-risking list that is unmaintainable and can never aspire to an encyclopedic standard. Eusebeus 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats OR about this list? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and possibly POV and also per Utcursch.--JForget 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator mentions that there is a similar article, and that he/she tried to clean this article up. A lot of hard feelings exist against Islam, and there are books that are highly critical of that religion and its followers. As with "Anti-Christian" books, however, one must make sure that these are indeed directed at the religion, and not something that a follower of a religion simply takes offense at. In the Christian example, the Last Temptation of Christ would not be included, nor a book against the Moral Majority; but some of Madlyn Murray O'Hair's works deriding Christianity as "superstitious nonsense" would. Author of this article would serve the point better by going beyond the blue-link. Mandsford 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong or POV with this list. Seems like delete reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Sefringle^Talk 04:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is simple original research. Do we have number of secondary sources indicating all of these books as critical to Islam? I do not think so. However, even if there are sources saying those book critical to Islam, I am not sure still creating such article is encyclopedic. --- A. L. M. 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How about renaming it to "Books related to Islam and controversy". Any better ideas? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR concerns above. we already have a category in any case, which should be sufficient. ITAQALLAH 15:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per Itaqallah.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)~~ - Likely sockpuppet of Kirbyftime. See check user. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Itaqallah. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The new title is better. Any comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it is incredibly vague, making the article even more redundant. ITAQALLAH 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very useful list. With all lists and categories, the guideline WP:OR is harder to enforce. We often choose the lists over the strict interpretation of the guideline. This list serves an encyclopedic purpose and with those concerned watching it, it will be accurate. Arrow740 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion is too vague. The modern way of discourse is inherently based on critical thinking, so today nearly every European book discussing Islam may be declared critical (especially by Islamists). What is worse: Shiites and Sunni are cutthroat critics of each other, so I guess Islamic books of islam also critical of Islam (of the opposite trend). I even do not begin to list books about Islamic slave trade, women in Islam, Ottoman Empire, etc., - many of them quite critical of Islam. Concluding, being "critical" of something is not sufficiently defining to have a category. `'Míkka 00:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of withdrawn nomination and majority vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levine (journalist)[edit]

This article is on a non-notable personality. – Zntrip 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Levine is an active journalist. He hosts a daily news interview program on a network beamed to televisions worldwide, and streamed through the internet. If you watch the show, you will see that he interviews highly credentialed guests. He also hosts a national radio show on XM satellite radio, in addition to his myriad of other journalistic work. You can watch his television show through the news channel's website. It's on a couple of times a day.

Further, I am saddened that Zntrip, with whom I had a disagreement with in another matter, followed my edit history and is now targetting my other articles in retaliation. As a matter of policy, Zntrip should not be rewarded for this behavior. We need to encourage cordial relations on Wikipedia, not petty Wikistalking.--Vitalmove 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Media hosts on larger networks are notable, because may people see/hear them. Mukadderat 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated above, the position appears to give notability. I would like to see this bio expanded to reflect audiences reached, topics covered and some good sources. --Stormbay 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found more information on him and posted it in the article. --Vitalmove 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Notability is claimed and cited. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 05:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the new information that has been added to the page, which I was previously unaware of, I withdraw this nomination. I would like to apologize to Vitalmove, as I assumed from your edits on PRESS TV and Portal talk:Current events, as well as the recent creation of your account, that you came to Wikipedia with alternate motives. I now realize that your creation of this page was indeed legitimate and the personality described in it is notable. You must understand however, that I assumed (with your past edits at Portal talk:Current events in mind) that you wrote an article about the host of your favorite television show. I made the conclusion, rather hastily, that the article was invalid. I do want you to understand that this nomination was not a personal attack or a form of revenge and that it was in the interest of improving this encyclopedia. – Zntrip 06:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Trade Gazette[edit]

NN newspaper with a circulation of 26K -- Y not? 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs to be worked on, but it's definitely salvagable. Reading the article leads me to believe this paper might have at least some relevance. Furthermore, the original author seems willing to discuss and substanciate his claims. Let us give him a chance. -- Ishikawa Minoru 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This newspaper is mentioned in 7 news articles found with google. [74] --Sbluen 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major trade publication.Golfcam 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no problem in keeping something that 26k people might want to learn about. Plantocal 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Viscount of Adrilankha. I'm also merging the other two books of the series. Sandstein 09:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Paths of the Dead[edit]

This book (as described in the article) fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BK. The article places the book in context of the author's other works and offers a plot summary, nothing else.

Having said that, I'm not confident that WP:BK is followed with any consistency. JohnRDaily 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for now. No sources cited which establish notability and I couldn't find any from a Google search (except blogs). Corpx 02:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that all the articles covering the book in this series are the same - context, plot summary, and occasionally a couple bits of trivia. If this book is deleted, the rest should be as well. --JohnRDaily 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the other two into the main article for the 3-part series. And then look for reviews or other sources for the notability of the whole thing. DGG (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete&Redirect to Paths of the Dead. Amazon.com sales rank is over 300,000... 70.55.88.11 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It compares favorably with other fantasy novels that have separate articles. If this were part of a consolidation that covered all articles of this type, I would feel differently. --Stormbay 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other fantasy noves are notable. I cant find any notability for this one. Corpx 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Viscount of Adrilankha Giggy _U^CP 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per DGG. Notable series, no need for individual articles though. Some useful sources: [75] [76] [77] Locus v49 #6 (No.503) December 2002 (p31) [78] Interzone Number 186 February 2003. JulesH 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Viscount of Adrilankha per above. When this closes as a merge/redirect, be bold and redirect the other two as well. Eusebeus 16:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I agree with Eusebeus, take a look at my opinion above. I did a further check and there are over 1100 fantasy novels with their own articles. A quick check on the fantasy author Robert Jordan alone, gives you an array of articles written on most of his books. I have no particular objection to heading in a new direction at this point, but it is a new direction. --Stormbay 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. Robert Jordan is probably the most popular fantasy author of the last few years. His books are amazingly successful, and he writes inordinate numbers of them. Of course we have a lot of articles about them. JulesH 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make concerned the fantasy genre in general. Steven Brust is notable as well; certainly not as notable as Robert Jordan, who I chose deliberately. Where will the line be drawn in terms of notable enough so that his/her books may have a separate article? It seems arbitrary as there are many articles in this genre that would not be equal to this one either in quality of writing or notability of the author. --Stormbay 20:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT If deleted, then this should be turned into a DAB page. 132.205.44.5 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, no individual notability asserted, seems to be directory entry and plot summary. SamBC 09:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm no expert in wikipolicy, but I'm a little confused as to why an article about a fictional location is more notable than a book that stands a decent chance of sitting on the shelves of your local Barnes & Noble. Further, I'm confused as to why an article should be deleted if it only contains a plot summary. Doesn't that just mean that it's a stub? Are we to delete all stub articles? A quick google search reveals a number of reviews for the book. Tor is a major publisher. The book is stocked in major book stores. While it's certainly not a major work, I think the book is notable enough. -Captain Crawdad 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This debate seems extraordinary. There are plenty more fantasy novels well established here that have sold far less well and have not the critical reaction that these novels have. This one is no different (see [79] for instance). There is a need to improve the article but constantly deleting peoples work is no way to see articles improve, just potential contributors vanish in frustration. By the way I have no axe to grind for this novel or this author. However I can see this novel is "at least" has note worthy of inclusion, from the web based reaction at least. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a novel in a well-established universe, from a well-known writer; it is certainly more deserving of its own article than many of the self-published and obscure novels, polemics, etc. which do have their own unchallenged articles here. I find myself wondering if there is a certain bias against imaginative literature in play; but will admit that I am a fan thereof and my POV may be not untainted. --Orange Mike 17:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it. The book is released by a major, New York-based publisher. If this were a self-published book, or a vanity-press book, or a book desk-top-published by the author's drinking buddy on a kitchen table in Brooklyn, or an unpublished/unpublishable mish-mash about somebody's obscure grandfather who was an extra in a few movies and whose wife dabbled in Satanism, I would say axe it right now. Those are the kinds of "books" we've quite rightly chased off Wikipedia in the past, but this book is none of those things. Not just anybody can land a legitimate New York publishing contract. Only about one writer out of every 500 lands one of those. Established Wikipedia policies accept major releases like this one as notable. Qworty 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orientacion (Prison Break episode)[edit]

The article concerns a future episode which has not been aired yet. Currently, the article contains a brief summary, which cites a fan site as a source. No official information has been released yet so the name and summary of the episode are uncertain at the present and mostly, unverifiable speculation. Also, there are no additional information (on production etc.) other than the summary. The subject is currently non-notable. -- Ladida 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL until such time as reliable sources are available. Fansites are not reliable sources. Otto4711 04:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:CBALL J. T. Lance 11:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ball and per WP:EPISODE. Eusebeus 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The String Quartet Tribute. Sr 13 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to Gwen Stefani[edit]

And Gwen Stefani: A Piano Tribute. They're not by notable artists. They don't appear to be notable at all since there's not significant coverage (only track listings and release information) available. 17Drew 00:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the artists aren't notable. Although I must admit, "Hollaback Girl" would be a lot better on the piano, because that way I wouldn't hear the air headed lyrics to that (*@#$!ing song... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is clearly not notable in nature. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as artists are not notable... could possibly be included otherwise. J. T. Lance 11:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The String Quartet Tribute (the artists aren't notable, but the series itself does has a glimmer of notability) Will ^(talk) 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect & lock to The String Quartet Tribute as above. Eusebeus 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Go[edit]

Although article has been reworked since (contested) prod, still basically an advert with no claim of notability. (Alexa ranking of 183,000+ is not an impressive reference). Fabrictramp 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide rankings of websites that actually sells goods as a manufacturer or wholesaler in the apparel industry to a retailer. In the apparel industry, goods are ordered as COD, so minimal web traffic will be shown. Goods are typically ordered over the phone. Please visit the website to see the format.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanfly012 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Why isn't this linking properly from the Fashion Go page? The "this article's entry" part is red. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claims to notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shameless promo of a nn website. Mukadderat 01:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of coverage by independent sources Corpx 02:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no assertion of notability, and it reads like an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazure (talk • contribs)
Delete Please delete if you feel that sources are not properly covered. icanfly
Delete due to WP:SPAM, and because there is nothing notable of the subject. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of differences between Columbia's and Filmation's Ghostbusters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of differences between Columbia's and Filmation's Ghostbusters

Pointless trivial list, see WP:NOT and WP:LISTCRUFT, prod removed, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ghostbuster trivia. Wikipedia is not for a collection of trivia. --Haemo 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The two Ghostbusters franchises merely happened to have the same name and similar concepts (which led to a trademark/licensing dispute) -- one wasn't an adaptation of the other. --Metropolitan90 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An encyclopedia is not the place for this type of comparison Corpx 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's next? List of differences between rabbits and comb jellies? The fact that both franchises have the same name doesn't make comparison of them any more natural or encyclopedic. Deranged bulbasaur 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the page is doomed for deletion, would it be possible to rename this article and write about the Legal battle between Filmation and Columbia? VoltronForce 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a notable topic to write about if it produced a substantial legal precedent or attracted media attention. One can't write about every corporate legal battle indiscriminately, because most large corporations are embroiled in at least 100 at any given time which will generally result in an anticlimactic settlement once the parties have surveyed each other's chances. I don't see why an article about that topic need involve this Afd or its subject, though. Deranged bulbasaur 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would it be appropiate to point out the differences in the GB articles themselves? VoltronForce 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only as the differences relate to the points of the lawsuit. ●DanMS • Talk 05:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete WP:TRIVIA Bulldog123 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe some information can be move to the article about the series. -- Magioladitis 06:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, noting WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA J. T. Lance 09:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan translation[edit]

If all WP:NOR and WP:V violations were removed, you'd have a stub that couldn't ever be expanded Misterdiscreet 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. legitimate topic widespread phenomenon, just as fansub. Mukadderat 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- your justification violates WP:V and WP:ATT Misterdiscreet 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mukadderat. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Just needs better sourcing. -- Ishikawa Minoru 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fan translation is a legitimate topic. The article needs a drastic overhaul, but to delete it entirely is going much too far. --Tenka Muteki 04:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too major a topic for total deletion when the main problems could be corrected relatively easily. Faunis 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- instead of saying this article could be corrected relatively easily how about you put your money where your mouth is and you actually do it Misterdiscreet 04:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same could be said to you, too.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 05:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - your recommending i put my money where my mouth is and actually do something instead of claiming it can be done? i propose you put your money where your mouth is and find a claim of mine that fits that description. if you can do that i'll see what i can do Misterdiscreet 12:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you seem to be more interested in deleting the topic than actually doing something about its flaws. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        deleting the topic is doing something about its flaws Misterdiscreet 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's a challenge: try to find a non-list article with more redlinks than this one. Basically reads like a bunch of little nn articles crammed into one big nn article. Full of grotesquely unencylopedic tidbits such as "RPGe's translation of Final Fantasy V was completed October 16, 1997 (version 0.96)." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, on the one hand, this article fails WP:V, WP:ATT, WP:NOR, and more alphabet soup; in addition, it's full of fan trivia, lingo, and God knows what else. I'm not 100% certain that it's an unencyclopedic topic; however, if it were kept, it would continue to bloat as more and more ultra-anal geeks add more of their "favorite" fan translation tidbits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Yes, there are problems, but they can be fixed. Although, I suggest a disambiguation link to be placed in its place so it can link to fansubbing, scanlations, and similar topics. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 05:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fansub, merge eventual non-redundant information (there's seems to be very little of it)--Victor falk 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the current article content lacks WP:RS; however, this has actually been discussed in published works, e.g. Carless, Simon (2004). Gaming Hacks. O'Reilly. pp. 265–7. ISBN 0596007140., which even mentioned some individual fan translation groups. Also it seems to me that fansub is a type of "fan translation", rather than "fan translation" being a subtopic of subtitling. This article, though, might be better off at Video game fan translation or something, since that's what it's actually about; it doesn't mention fan translations of other media like comics, books (yes, I've seen a few of these floating around the web), etc. Cheers, cab 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I mentioned this a bit ago. I've never been comfortable with having Fan Translation dedicated to games only, it should be a disambiguation topic instead. 201.143.47.161 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per Kitsune Sniper. Spikeman 06:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per cab J. T. Lance 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fansub. As ahs been mentined these are both valid topics and do have sourcing - however both of them are also pretty bloated with apparent original research and have a significant amount of overlap. Merging the two into a single article would be the superior solution. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There's absolutely no reason to delete this article, or to merge it with Fansub. Both topics are very different in nature, and good written articles about them could be very lengthy (fansub one already is), so putting that one as a subsection would only lead to massive confusion. What is needed is a good rewrite of both articles. So far, no one gave a good reason, and following some of the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion would mean that practically half of the contents of the encyclopedia should be deleted. --Lashiec 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that that half hasn't been deleted doesn't mean that this shouldn't be. see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Misterdiscreet 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (for consensus) Merge to Fansub as above per Arkyan. Eusebeus 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I agree with what Kitsune Sniper said. Just because there are problems with the article does not mean that it's not a valid topic for Wikipedia. Characterising editors who contribute to this article as "ultra-anal geeks" probably is a violation of WP:CIVIL, even if their contributions do not meet with Wikipedia standards. I admit that WP:V is somewhat of a problem, since a lot of facts about this topic are only to be found in community forums or blogs. That still doesn't mean that this is not an encyclopedic topic, it just means there are difficulties to work around. Above all, there is no reason to merge this article into fansub, although the opposite merge might be valid. This article is not about subtitling anime.Soluzar 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are there any WP:RSes about this subject? I tried google, came up empty. One would think that if it is a notable phenomenon some media would have mentioned it, some game manufacturer would have mentioned it (sued over it even, they do get touchy), something somewhere other than in the fansites. Could someone point them out? If not, delete is in order. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been a few mentions in industry periodicals; the one that comes to mind immediately is a four-page article in Retro Gamer magazine, issue #25, pages 102 through 105. This was from last May or June. There was one in EGM (October 2000) and a few in Edge - one in May 2003, and one in September 2003 specifically about Bahamut Lagoon. Scans of the EGM and Edge articles can be found here. Similarly, there's an extremely recent interview of Koichiro Sakamoto, Front Mission's producer, by RPGamer, wherein he acknowledges the importance of fan translation. "On a similar note, we told Mr. Sakamoto that a fan translation had been done some years ago for Front Mission 1, and asked how he felt about such efforts. The producer replied that he actually found them very encouraging -- it's something the developers should be doing, but because they're not, the fans are doing it instead. He stated that he'd like to be able to give something back to the fans, and would like to thank personally each of the fans that worked on the translation."[80] Lakmir 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rpgamer.com does not qualify as a reliable source. If you can find a BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC or any other important coverage, then it may be worth a note. If not a single reliable site find the information newsworthy, nor we. Misterdiscreet 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, a website that has been around for almost ten years, has relevant ties to game developers and publishers, and which has interviewed lots of individuals in the gaming industry... isn't a valid source? You seem to treat the organizations in your reply in high regard, when they rarely if ever have coverage related to video games at all. RPGamer isn't a blog that some fifteen-year old runs from his basement; this is a very valid source for information. I don't understand why you keep saying it isn't. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting the link from your argument 'Reliable sources' "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." BBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC are not "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I read video game news and I have never used these sources for game news since they are not "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." As a qualifier as a reliable source for "video game news" I propose anyone who has been invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit to be reliable publications. RPGamer was invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit. Again I quote your link "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." From the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit website "The E3 Media & Business Summit is an exclusive, invitation-only, three-day event which will offer the opportunity for both ESA members and non-members to stage major press events" "Who will be attending? Members of the media, retail, development and financial communities will attend, along with other key industry contacts." It is reasonable to assume that media invited to the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit to be "Reliable publications" otherwise they would not be invited.StarBeamAlpha 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

try creating an article on RPGamer. watch how fast it gets deleted. if its not notable enough for an article, why is it notable enough for a citation? Misterdiscreet 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not very fast apparently, RPGamer been on wikipedia since 22 July 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RPGamer&limit=500&action=history I guess from logic of your previous sentence you just proved to yourself that RPGamer is "notable enough for a citation" I am also working on writing some more stuff for the article including another source from EGM which also has its own article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGM EGM's circulation in 2005 was 608,133 with source: http://www.magweasel.com/wiki/Electronic_Gaming_Monthly Lets work together Misterdiscreet and make this a better article. :) Do you like playing fan translations as I do?StarBeamAlpha 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i concede this round to you. nice job Misterdiscreet 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I just added a reliable source from a interview with a game developer that mentioned fan translations that was published today, 12 July 2007. Also, here are 4 magazine scans on an article entitled "Japanese Rom Translation" from Retro Gamer, a published magizine. Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 StarBeamAlpha 18:01, 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources make it 'legitimate'. The article just needs a little cleanup now. Joe User NY 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because an article needs cleanup doesn't mean it should be deleted --Micpp 04:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is a needed article. properly referenced, just needs cleanup. Turlo Lomon 09:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and cleanup) or a grudging Merge to Fansub. The concept is clearly notable; the article may not be the best imaginable, but that doesn't need deletion to sort out. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment vandalizing my user page hurts your credibility. also, looking at the edit histories of most voters, i think there are likely several WP:SOCK violations Misterdiscreet 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support vandalism, although after looking at all the badges on your user page I have to question your motives of caring about the subject at hand, do you even play video games? I don't support sock puppets either so feel free to report any suspected sock puppets at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets StarBeamAlpha 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the vandalism is childish and doesn't help anyone. However, Misterdiscreet, after your last outburst I think you have sock puppet paranoia.

Keep The article still needs work, but not so much that deletion is warranted. If Merge is the consensus, I think merging Fansub into this article might be a better idea, since Fan translation is the more general term and Fansub is a neologism anyhow. Qubed 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a major rewrite, in its current state it does not fit into Wikipedia. Users that care about this topic have already started rewriting it. Give it a few weeks, if it's still in a bad state then, renominate. --Apathor 10:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But please, definitely add some proper sources to the article! - Brian Kendig 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DeJap Translations and RPGe pages were both recently deleted, so I'm not sure that a proper merge has developed yet. The article is a work in progress, and it seems to be improving over time. Add more sources; if the page is inadequate in a month, renominate for merging. If a merge is executed eventually, Scanlation and Fansub should be merged into this page. WP:NOR and WP:V are not problematic when legitimate sources are added to the article, and this is already happening. Personally, I think the topic is notable as I have played quite a few of these fan translations when they were the best option available. On a side note, avoid being combative and personal attacks. -Tsunade 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate topic. May not have been reported on by many magazines (Though a fair amount have reported on it,) you can't deny the size of the scene, and there's no reason it can't be covered here.CrawdKenny 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. Fan translation has been in common practice around since 1998. Legal issues are not a rationale for deletion of this article. The article still needs some work. It mainly needs to be sourced. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 14:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Cup[edit]

Summer friendly competition to be held first this year. I think these competitions are not notable at all, there's no sense in keeping articles about an unofficial two-day "cup" with no history at all to be mentioned. Angelo 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. It hasn't happened yet this year, and there is no precedent in past years in London, and there is no explanation why a two-day exhibition tournament is significant. I suspect an ulterior motive (I removed a section explaining how to buy tickets to the games). Shalom ^Hello 13:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Paulbrock 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable friendly tournament (as opposed to the Amsterdam Tournament which is a well-known annual event). There must be hundreds of these for clubs at all levels. Number 5 7 14:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not one of hundreds for clubs "at all levels", it is one of the tiny number that involve the elite clubs of world soccer. It is on just the same level as the Amsterdam Tournament. Golfcam 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so? Are we gonna make an article for each single UEFA Champions League group because of the fact they involve "elite clubs"? This tournament has no history at all, and additionally it's not an official tournament, so it's much less notable than any single UEFA Champions League group. --Angelo 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not on the same level as the Amsterdam Tournament as (a) it is not an annual event and (b) It carries a sponsors name and is therefore is at least partially an advertising opportunity rather than a "notable" tournament. Number 5 7 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is front rank football. It is irrelevant that it hasn't started yet, as it is certain to go ahead. This is more notable than say the Olympic sailing. Hawkestone 11:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A one-off summer friendly tournament more notable than an olympic event? I can't even think of where to begin replying to that. Number 5 7 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meaningless pre-season competition which will be virtually forgotten about as soon as the real League starts. - fchd 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The clubs participating on this friendly tournament are notable, so the tournament will probably be notable as well. If throughout the tournament there is no media cover, what I doubt, then it will be not notable and could be deleted.--ClaudioMB 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Richard Rundle and No 57. There are plenty of fully professional top flight turnaments worldwide lacking decent coverage and this tournament will probably be little more than a pre season kick about for the 2nd or 3rd team players of invited teams.King of the North East 20:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meaningless pre-season tournament. HornetMike 22:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you are going to delete the meaningless tournaments, why not delete the VIVA World Cup as well Chaza1000 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've tried deleting that and the NF-Board stuff as well! - fchd 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pre-season training that has a structure, i.e. a tournament basis, and notable teams taking part. This does not make the tournament itself notable. --Malcolmxl5 20:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this, you should delete every single preseason tournament page, like the Amsterdam Tournament, Peace Cup, Barclays Asia Trophy 2007, and others. The ONLY difference is that this tournament is in its first year. It certainly has the elite teams the other ones have, will likely draw tens of thousands of fans, and will definitely be broadcast on European and American TV. I've been looking through the club competitions category for summer tournaments like this, so here's one user who definitely finds the information notable and useful.Mreleganza 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arsenal intend for this tournament to run yearly and be for England what the Amsterdam Tournament is for Holland. However, if it only happens this year, it should be deleted after that is confirmed. Steveweiser 11:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tickets for both days of this tournament have already sold out. Arsenal intends for this tournament to run yearly at a level on par of the Amsterdam Tournament (hence the structuring of the rules off of the Amsterdam Tournament). This is the first year, but this will constitute a major part of the pre-seasons for all four of these world-class clubs.
Delete These trophies are simply pre-season friendly ("exhibition") events. There are many such tournaments internationally. I would also vote for deletion of any other similar tournaments which have ended up with articles. Robotforaday 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already voted, but if understand WP:Non-notability correctly, the most important baseline seems to be media coverage. The tournament is still over a week away, but already has 75 unique GoogleNews hits. Besides that, as noted, the event has sold out a 60,000+ seat stadium. I think some people are confusing unimportant with non-notable. Very clearly, many, many people are interested in this. Mreleganza 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite simply because the Amsterdam Tournament has an article so deleting this one wouldn't be very consistant.Arrowny 12:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Classic case of why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument? Robotforaday 13:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an official guideline, it's an essay. WP:Notability, on the other hand, is an official guideline, and the sold out tickets and media hits seem to put it on the "keep" side of that guideline. Again, I'm not seeing a lot of comments to why it's not important and not many on why it's not notable, as defined by WP, particularly if this is held annually as planned. Mreleganza 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE also says "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." In the absence of competitive football, of course these events are going to attract passing coverage. However, as WP:NOTE shows, this short-term news coverage may not indicate notability, especially if the event is likely to disappear and be forgotten. At least the Amsterdam Tournament has actually been repeated a number of times. It's not yet clear whether this pre-season kickabout will be. Robotforaday 18:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was more in response to comments like "meaningless pre-season tournament".Arrowny 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbag Records[edit]

non notable company [81]. 963O 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable, almost no content. NawlinWiki 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - hardly any assertion of notability; on references. Shalom ^Hello 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CORP, and notability is not inherited from its parent company. Could conceivably be recreated if independent secondary-source coverage becomes available; in that case, would need to go through deletion review. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elanti Systems[edit]

non notable company 963O 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. "Systems" in your company name, like "solutions", is a strong suggestion of a non-notable business. The lead paragraph calls this business a global leader in telecommunication services, and the article claims that it makes service management solutions and real time intelligent routing solutions. Being a "global leader" that makes "solutions" (outside the chemical industry) almost guarantees that this business is not notable. This corporation was founded in 2007. But note that the article suggests that this company is a spinoff from Telstra, a certainly notable business, and this relationship may suggest notability for a future, sourced, and NPOV article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Telstra for the moment. When it clearly passes WP:CORP, it can be recreated. Eusebeus 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Telstra. When it passes WP:CORP, recreate it. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirects are not a "holding pen" for non-notable companies. UnitedStatesian 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEALBAY[edit]

non notable company. 963O 11:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert anything that passes WP:CORP. Eusebeus 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Advertising and not a whole lot else, miserably fails WP:CORP Rackabello 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Street Fighter Skills and techniques[edit]

Rather obnoxiously incomplete, it's basically a list of technique names and descriptions without any context or sourcing. It's completely unnecessary, to boot, as only the hardcore fan would be interested in this kind of thing. I came out of Wikivacation just to AfD this thing. ^_^ JuJube 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A good example of gamecruft. --User:Krator (t c) 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incompleteness is not grounds for deletion. As sheer gamecruft, however, Delete this. Eusebeus 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a game players guide or a substitute users manual for the product. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Research[edit]

Spam, plain and simple out-right spam ShoesssS ^Talk 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Shoessss. Also this article qualifies for deletion on grounds of non-notablabilty. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Strong delete as spam. Shalom ^Hello 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as spam. Entirely free from sources, and written in a baldly promotional style (Performance Research is the world's leading consumer based sponsorship evaluation/research firm) ripe with tautologies and abstract verbal hyperinflation (A sponsorship program is intended to reach an on-site audience, therefore it is necessary to talk with consumers at a sponsored event, when impact is at its highest). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as CSD G11. Eusebeus 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bilsborough[edit]

wp
g
b

) – (View AfD)

Article makes no claims for notability other than participation in a group show and the fact the artist earned a grant. About 1,000 ghits, 100 of which are from Wikipedia. Antonrojo 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. As written, doesn't seem up to an article just yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing asserted that passes WP:BIO. Eusebeus 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Eusebeus. Bearian 23:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of Tintin[edit]

A front for a whole spew of OR and heavily breaking NPOV - at most, it warrants a section in the parent article. Will ^(talk) 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is either an excellent article or a terrible one. I don't know which, and it depends entirely on how well it sticks to its sources. I think it warrants further investigation, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and not support deletion at present: the article has a very long history (since 2003!) and hundreds of edits from dozens of editors, so I doubt it's some guy's POV screed. Maybe bring it to the attention of the comics wikiproject for closer looking-into. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That fact that Andrew is voting Keep prevents me from weighing in with Delete on this one for the moment. I agree with his suggestion, although it may be this is a POV fork from the main Tintin article, in which case as WP:OR it should be deleted. Eusebeus 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even a controversial article - if an article's that old, it should be NPOV. It's really not. Will ^(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's POV, what is the point of view? And why can't it be made more neutral? Most of the article is directly backed up by the Sadoul and Peeters books. Instead of just slapping a delete tag on it, why say what the problems are, if you don't feel like fixing them yourself? Zompist 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup if needed~(i.e. add specific sources to individual statements, not general sources to the whole of the article). There is nothing inherently POV about the "Ideology of Tintin", and the very recent British uproar over Tintin in the Congo confirms that it is an important aspect of the comic. Perhaps rename it to Ideology of ''The Adventures of Tintin'' though, to better show that it is about the ideology expressed in the comics, and not solely the ideology of the protagonist. Fram 18:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have access to the sources but will assume that they support the content; more specific citations would be beneficial but their lack is no reason to delete. Quite an interesting article, and after reading it a rename as proposed by Fram is probably warranted. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree. The answer is not deleting it but instead verifying the reliabilty of the article, and making sure it has a npov. Tag it appropriately. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this article will need to be watched pretty carefully to make sure it doesn't go off on strange tangents. It's certainly possible to write an article about this kind of thing - I wrote a paper along these lines a few years ago at uni, in fact - and this looks like a sincere attempt to produce just that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; I'm pretty sure the topic is discussed elsewhere. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Random Editor J. T. Lance 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7; the author, User:Kurdking, edited the article and removed the assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Adam E[edit]

Looks like self promotion to me. The page was entirely created by one Kurdking (talk · contribs). Google seems to agree: 1 hit is a wikipedia archive, the other is some other "adam ali mahmoud", and lastly a personal webpage. Non-notable individual. -- Cat ^chi? 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete No assertion of notability; obvious conflict of interest by WP:SPA. Shalom ^Hello 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, asserts notability, claims three #1 hits in Kurdistan, but no sources. NawlinWiki 18:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Speedy delete, see above. NawlinWiki 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus on Parran Hall, delete Graig Hall. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parran Hall[edit]

Contested prod, with the following message left on the talk page "The 'article delete' templates were quite inconsistently applied to various University of Pittsburgh buildings, for the reason, "unnotable structure". Some less notable buildings and articles did not have them, so I have removed all those I saw, until such a time as they can be applied judiciously. In addition, is "unnotable structure" a reason to remove a page? ".

The building is a university building, built in 1958 and of no note.

Also nominating Craig Hall for similar reasons Nuttah68 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both and most or all articles in Category:University of Pittsburgh buildings. The information could be organized differently, but it is solid, referenced information, and needs not be deleted. Shalom ^Hello 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Hall could be deleted, since it looks indistinguishable from any other office building of that ilk. As far as Parran Hall is concerned, on the surface it looks like it might have some architectural notability, at least as far as the statue is concerned. That's kind of a judgement call, though. Is it one of the more notable architectural works on the University of Pittsburgh campus? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comstock Hall for my reasoning there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a slightly expanded copyvio of [82]. Probably the rest of the text as well is somewhere on that site.
- no, the rest does not all come from that site and is referenced, such as Albert's 1987 book.cp101p 05:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep Parran Hall as a significant building named after a significant person adorned with a significant art work. Alone, each would be marginal for Notability, but notability is cumulative, and the combined factors are sufficient. Neutral on Craig Hall, as this appears to be a fairly typical commercial building, and there is no claim of notability. Dhaluza 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found evidence of notability for the sculptor, Virgil Cantini, and the sculpture is one of his significant works, making the building notable by association. Dhaluza 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no notability by association on Wikipedia. If the sculpture is notable it gets an article and Parran Hall is mentioned as the location. Likewise with being named after a notable person, just because St Peter was notable, not every building in the world named for him is. Nuttah68 13:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is it written that "there is no notability by association on Wikipedia?" There is no such consensus that I know of. One of the criteria for notability of schools is famous graduates, so there is a case of notability by association on Wikipedia. I don't think the sculpture by itself is notable enough for a separate article, but it seems appropriate to keep the article on the building with information on the sculpture and sculptor merged into it. Dhaluza 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found evidence of notability for the architectural firm Eggers & Higgins who worked on several other notable buildings. Dhaluza 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for Parran Hall, the art work on the front and notability of its namesake warrants its inclusion, as well as the location of the entire School of Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. There is no other building named after the former Surgeon General Parran so the St. Peter argument doesn't hold up. Parran Hall is a notable building in Pittsburgh and especially the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. It serves as a landmark sitting on a prominent location along a major roadway (5th Avenue) demarking the foot of the medical center complex behind it. Weak keep for Craig Hall, it is only included for reasons of completeness of the University's buildings, which as noted above, is quite complete, referenced and encyclopedic. Suggestions are welcome for better organization of Pitt campus building projects.cp101p 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Craig Hall This is easy-- it doesn't seem to have a notable architect, it has no artwork, it houses a miscellany of administrative departments. It wasn't even named after anyone, it was named for the street it's on. it is about as undistinguished as a building can be, and the most that is said above for it is that it should be kept because all the buildings on a campus should be kept. I see it rather as a clear demonstration of why not all buildings on a college campus are notable. WP is not a tour guide. DGG (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe one can make an good argument that WP does act as a tour guide in many situations. It is my understanding that the actual wikipedia policy is not to be a travel guide (including things such as addresses to restaurants and hotels and travel reviews or deals). WP does act as a historical tour guide in many instances, and one only has to look for examples of pages linked by succession boxes. In the panopoly of succession linked articles on heads of businesses, government offices, sports teams, and even colleges; let alone sports fields and structures and even transportation stations (eg. Sam Boyle and South Hills Village (PAT station) are hardly notable on their own), the inclusion of these is often more important for its encyclopedic nature than their notability. Therefore, WP can serve as a tour guide, either historically or physically, because of its encyclopedic nature. Linking both Parren Hall and Craig Hall by succession box according to University of Pittsburgh construction or acquisition dates may be a suitable way to address where they fit in to the WP organization. In any case, neither article has been given much time to acquire additional information. As a regular contributor to Pitt material, I for one do not live near their location and have no ability to research off-line sources of information...but being easily found on the web, especially for building created before the web was so prolific, can not be a sole determinant of notability.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parren but rename to the name of the School. First, the building where an academic department or a school is located is not necessary notable from that very fact. Nor are all the buildings on a campus notable. Particular iconic or historic buildings are, if there are separate published works devoted to the building as such, which has not been demonstrated here. If the school is notable, the building can be mentioned--even with a redirect. In an article on the college, the more important buildings are normally mentioned. In a article on an architect, the more important building are mentioned. If the artwork is worth mentioning, it can be included in the article for the artist.

I see zero references on the building as a building. Nor is most of the article about the building--it's about everything connected: the firm who built it, the man it was named after, the graduate School it houses, the sculpture that is affixed to it. What probably is notable is the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, but there is no article on it. The individual Graduate Schools of a major university are probably notable. Sometimes, they will be in notable buildings. There are hundreds of buildings on the Pittsburgh campus, and some of them may well be notable, but it has to be shown by sources. Otherwise it will just duplicate all the entries: whatever parts of the university are separately notable will each need two articles, one for the college or school or whatever, and one for the building. DGG (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps not every building on a university is notable for its history or architecture, but that in itself does not necessarily make it non-notable. The definition of notability can come from many other factors including location, function, construction, architect, ownership, and even local prominence/visibility. This building, in its Oakland location, is clearly notable based on its location and facade to which is affixed the previously mentioned work of art. The sculpture is completely associated with the building, more than it is associated to anything else including its artist, and generally considered part of the building's facade. To give you an example, someone not knowing where the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center or where to turn for the Petersen Events Center would easily be directed there by the looking for the building along 5th Avenue with the "funny abstract person hanging on the front", and locally it is typically used as such a landmark because Parren Hall's unique facade (and this can not be disassociated from the sculpture and vice versa) defines both the beginning of the medical campus and the western edge of the undergrad campus. In any case, an encyclopedic grouping of university buildings is clearly what originators of the University of Pittsburgh article were striving for, and this has many precedents in other WP categories as I noted above.cp101p 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what you specify is the function of the university web site, its maps, and its listing of directions to the various buildings. WP is not a campus guide. DGG (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the article, delete the copyvio list. Sala Skan ^{(Review me)} 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die[edit]

Copyright violation. A stub about the book is borderline notable, but repeating its contents is a copyvio. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite lots of lists (top number N of thing Y) being flagged as copyvio, the wikimedia folks have never given a definitive call whether they are. Ultimately, it's not encyclopedic so it ought to go. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Listing the films categorized by decade is definitely a WP:COPY violation, so I have reverted to the last revision that just barely meets fair use guidelines. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove film list. Notable book, but it's not necessary to list out all of the films that the book reviews. Groupthink 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought about whether the book was notable, the author's redlink notwithstanding, and did a quick check of Amazon to see where it ranked in sales there: 7,283rd. I don't think we have a magical cut-off; but being 7283rd - even out of a few million books ever written - does not establish notability. Is there more? Carlossuarez46 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the list must go as a copyright violation. Corvus cornix 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I agree with Groupthink, in some circumstances, I don't think that the book is very notable but also we do not list the content of books on wikipedia, when you look at an article on a book it doesn't list all the content or the index of the book. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 23:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the list. Based on a Google news search, it seems like the book was reviewed by a number of newspapers/magazines/etc. A 7,283rd ranking on Amazon isn't too shabby -- that's a lot better than any version of Germinal, for example -- and Wikipedia is not paper. Zagalejo 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to some of these reviews in the article might sway it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Amazon sales rankings are only useful in measuring the sales of recent books, where it is but one data point - kind of a sanity check. But without WP:RSes citing this as a notable book, the article sans the list really doesn't demonstrate notability. Perhaps a mention of who the "film critics" were (Shalitt, Ropers & Ebert, Spielberg, Lucas, Polanski, someone we've heard of?) who leant their names and advice to the book would assist, as anyone can be a film critic. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are four multi-paragraph book reviews I've found after a quick Factiva search. Each comes from a different continent. If I have to, I can list many more reviews.

Bernard Trink. "As Good as They Come." Bangkok Post. 20 April 2007. R11.
Ron Rollins. "Read the book then see the movies." Dayton Daily News. 30 January 2005. F1.
Abigail Wild. "1001 ways to give cinema new scope." The Herald. 12 November 2003. 13.
Peter Haran. "The must-see movies of all time." Sunday Mail. 23 May 2004. 84.

I'd also like to point out that, according to the 10 April 2004 issue of The Daily Telegraph, this book was once the #2 best-selling non-fiction book in Australia (2nd to Eats, Shoots and Leaves). I'm not sure if any of the figures you mentioned contributed to the book, as I don't own the book myself. Based on my searches, however, I've learned that the critics include Adrian Martin, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Richard Pena, David Stratton, and Margaret Pomeranz, all of whom seem fairly significant. Zagalejo 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to that issue of the Daily Telegraph? This book is one in a series of 1001...'s produced by a company called Quarto and its imprint (label) Quintet. As with the "for Dummies" and the "Complete idiot" books, by far greater sellers and better known, a single article of all the various titles is probably the right way to go; like ...for Dummies or The Complete Idiot's Guide to..., rather than for each book (which here could be little more than a stub without the list). Note: the List of ...for Dummies books was deleted as a result of this discussion. So delete is still in order here. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide a link to that specific article, since I accessed it with Factiva through my university library. I can give you this sample of an article, which, I believe, shows that the book was ranked #7 overall in Australia (fiction and non-fiction). As far as I know, we don't have an article on the "1,001..." series (all I've found are individual articles, like 1,000 Places to See Before You Die.) I'd support a merge to an article on the Quarto series if we had one, but we don't, so I'm still !voting to keep for right now. Zagalejo 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article need not be deleted, but the list is a copyright infringement. There is non-infringing content in the page history possibly worth saving. The infringing material needs to be removed from accessible history. --SmokeyJoe 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial pop culture book of transitory appeal. Without the complete list the article is of no value to anyone. With the list it is a copyright violation. Hawkestone 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I put up the page originally. I realise Wikipedia is a universal resource, but the book is extra-notable in Australia, featuring input from many of the nation's top critics such as David Stratton, our version of Roger Ebert, and released with a lot of publicity by our public broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Zagalejo put it better than I did. Whether you believe it to be trivial or not is meaningless, and assuming it doesn't contravene any copyright policies there is absolutely no reason why it should be deleted. I honestly don't know why it was even taken to the AfD page; the editor who picked up on the copyright violation should have just edited the page themselves and that would've been the end of it. Cheers, Rothery 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- It's been about a week now and the article does not reflect the claims to notability that this page asserts. Where are the secondary sources? Where is the proof that it received attention, etc.? As it is, this is a useless stub. So what if Ebert contributed? The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no one said that Ebert contributed. I'll add a couple of references to the article, though. Zagalejo 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think Rothery has made his case. Brianhe 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn - changed to a disambiguation page. Shalom ^Hello 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Raiders[edit]

redundant and useless, nothing worth merging with Middle Tennessee State University Xorkl000 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect No reason to delete just redirect it over to Middle Tennessee State University and close the AfD. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, this is not the only school in America to have this mascot, what about Lindsey Wilson College? --Xorkl000 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we should probably change this to a disambig page then. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good idea, you want to take a shot at it first? I'll withdraw the nom --Xorkl000 00:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

never mind i've done it - now how do you withdraw this nomination? --Xorkl000 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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