Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete as User:Carlossuarez46 deleted it per WP:CSD#A1 Very short article without context. Non-admin closure--Sefringle^Talk 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Patriots rivalries[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Pats1 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no attribution attesting to the notability of these rivalries (or even their existence). --Charlene 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom.--Targeman 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:V fail. Giggy _U^CP 00:06, 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 speedied. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Cummings (veteran)[edit]

Possible non notable veteran. No evidence that he received more coverage then a single newspaper article for his gruesome death. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A man murdered with a hatchet in 1896 is no more notable than a man shot in 2007. One newspaper article does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. Still kind of a cool story. At least we do not have to wait to see if it turns out to be notable. Edison 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy via A7 as does not assert notability. --Charlene 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 Giggy _U^CP 00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and kill the author with a hatchet. Just kidding. --Targeman 00:08, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Discovery Project[edit]

Non notable campus organization, references are a campus newspaper and trivial mention in local paper. No evidence of greater exposure. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete db-group Giggy _U^CP 00:09, 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 per nominator. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mursaat[edit]

Unverfiable article about a fictional race in an MMORPG, written entirely in an in-universe perspective with no real-world context required by the guideline for writing about fiction. Topic is clearly of negligible notability, limited to players of the game. Any salvagable content already exists in the plot summaries in the articles on the game, viz. Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars: Eye of the North and Guild Wars 2; no merge is needed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charr (Guild wars) for a related AfD discussion on another species from the same game. Eric Sandholm 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT no real world context at all. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and nom. Giggy _U^CP 00:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Targeman 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm Harlowraman 01:15, 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 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia[edit]

Non-notable racist wiki. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tiny racist wiki masquerading as an "alternative encyclopedia". A highly emetic read. --Targeman 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - no evidence of notability, and it claims to have had 2500 visitors in a year, which is a bit crap. I've got a mate whose photo album has more views than that. Iain99 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, and reads kind of like an advert for their "encyclopedia". Useight 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have been covered in independent,reliable sources. I don't suppose by "pro-European" they mean that they support the Reform Treaty ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. We may need to add it to the spam blacklist too, if editors persist in linking to it inappropriately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability Giggy _U^CP 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Until a few days ago, this was simply a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Couldn't we just revert back to that, without resorting to AFD? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting Metapedia to Wikimedia Foundation would be a really bad idea. Metapedia is not a Wikimedia Foundation project. Due to Metapedia's white supremacist point of view, the last thing the Foundation would want would be for people to think Metapedia is a Foundation project. It should be noted, however, that Metapedia started with a Swedish edition. Its notability should be measured by the larger and more frequently accessed Swedish edition, not the smaller English one. Weak delete. --Metropolitan90 06:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I suspect that the redirect was based on an old name for Wikipedia:Meta. Anyway, we could always redirect to HMS Montclare (F85), as it was citeably a civilian name for that ship. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point on the Swedishness. The Swedish mainpage has 69000 views which is a bit more respectable (twice what my friend's photo album has!) but the article still offers no evidence of notability. Iain99 07:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you can't argue with WP:IDONTLIKEIT (it's racist). The nom should not have included "racist" as a qualifier. We have articles on Nazism and KKK. However, in this case it doesn't seem notable due to a lack of hits. Guroadrunner 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hear! Hear! —SlamDiego_←T 05:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is without sources but there is no problem with independent sources about Swedish language edition. I hope that Searchlight, Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, Simon Wiesenthal Centre and other organizations, that they doesn't like, will write some sources against them that we will use against them. --Badpound 08:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, also, this doesn't belong here Rackabello 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Rackabello, Targeman, Iain99, Useight, Giggy, and WillBeBack. Spam, racist, homophobic, all which gives WP a bad name. Bearian 00:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's notable in the Swedish section (2 580 articles as of now), that means a lot of work. It's not racist, nobody can see anything racist on there, nobody kick blacks or something like that as I can see. Wikipedia should not censor this kind of projects which are worth interest by the community Bh3u4m 19:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it's a hate group, which I'm not sure of, people should be aware of this. I disagree that if "gives WP a bad name"... in fact, if it doesn't already say so, the article itself should make it clear that this is not associated with Wikipedia in any way. Maybe we should delete the entry to The Turner Diaries too, eh? Mandsford 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. (The nastiness and ignorance of the site — they don't even know what “μετά” actually meant! — is irrelevant.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:49, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makebreak Records[edit]

NN record label, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete one notable signing...I don't know. Giggy _U^CP 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. *drew 15:31, 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 delete. Daniel Case 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Phillips[edit]

Non-notable footballer. Mattythewhite 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Danny Phillips played youth football and reserve-team football at Charlton, and a first-team game for Charlton at Exeter City in pre-season. Was not offered a new contract and went to Bournemouth then onto Weymouth. Can't see that he ever made a first-team appearance in a fully professional league. So we have a player nearly but not quite making the grade. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The player needs professional status to qualify as notable. --Stormbay 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Conference National, although not a 'fully professional league', is still a league in which players can earn £1,000+ a week (and the vast majority of the teams in it are professional (including Weymouth, the team DP currently plays for)). Mattythewhite, you added Brian Dutton for goodness' sake. Danny Phillips has been at a bigger club than Dutts, and as far as I know, Phillips is still playing for a football team (i.e. Weymouth), unlike Dutton. Alexrushfear 14:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutton has played in a fully professional league. Phillips hasn't. Mattythewhite 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 substitute appearances for Cambridge United? Goodness gracious me. And you're going by a website that still thinks Simon Downer, Roy O'Brien, Shaun Wilkinson and Gareth Williams still play for Weymouth? Alexrushfear 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And? 3 substitute appearences is enough to give notability. See WP:BIO. Mattythewhite 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BIO: 'Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.' If the Conference is classed as being non-professional, it is the highest amateur level of football. If you're not willing to class it as either of those, perhaps Wikipedia should re-write it's notability policy for semi-professional footballers or players at clubs in semi-professional leagues. Alexrushfear 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As regularly stated when people bring this up, that's a misreading of WP:BIO. The highest amateur level is for those sports which are played on a purely amateur basis (e.g. Gaelic football). Those sports which are played professionally are covered by the "fully professional league" qualification, and do not also merit an additional tier of amateur coverage. Robotforaday 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something I'd recommend to be brought up at WP:FOOTY. Mattythewhite 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. *drew 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Plays for a professional team. I might change my vote based on this discussion. Dave101→talk 09:13, 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 sorry not convinced by the keep votes, I heard of it, isn't a valid reason to keep. And the article has issues with WP:V and WP:RS like Tony saysJaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pataphor[edit]

Non-notable neologism. -- Y not? 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I first heard about pataphors (or pataforas in Spanish) from my aunt, a professor at University of Nebraska-Lincoln who gave a lecture on them after the article came out in Chile, which she read and included in a lecture. While I do not claim to be an expert on notability, this seems notable to me, and to others. Thank you -- Thibau1 — Thibau1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete for now. The term is quite new and hasn't seen widespread usage yet. The only reference I've found to any reliable publication is the recent Chilean article mentioned above and linked from the article. While the "pataphysics" it is based on seems to be quite notable, pataphor isn't yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JulesH (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 July 2007.
Keep per Thibau1 Giggy _U^CP 00:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - per lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". Blogs/personal websites/youtube etc are not reliable sources and I cant read that spanish paper Corpx 02:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are indeed books and papers about the term. Pablo Lopez "Closet 'Pataphysics" in Ellipsis uses and invents the term. Then there is Pablo Lopez "Pataphors", University of Hollins (1994) which is solely about the term. The unnamed article in the Cahiers du Collège de Pataphysique n°22 (December 2005) explains the term by photographic means. The 2007 article "Patafísica y patáforas" by Luis Casado in the newspaper Granvalparaiso (English computer translation) uses and explains the term, referencing the books by Lopez. I think that is at least three, perhaps four. The article also mentions Pablo Lopez ""Pataphor Test", though i can't find any reference for that. And if that wasn't enough, there is even a [myspace-page] about it. see! -- ExpImp^talkcon 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the volume of usage of this term makes quite a compelling case for its continuation. It's true that the article in Spanish, while compelling, is not in English. However, Googling around I see it mentioned in numerous places, including twice included in poetry and poetry contests, finding, for example, this: http://www.humblevoice.com/profile/components/word_gallery/word.php?iid=2246 and http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showpost.php?p=369542&postcount=2. And many other places. Also note: http://www.illposed.com/philosophy/pataprogramming.html which references the Wikipedia entry and mentions an application to computing. This article on Wikipedia, which has been here for a couple of years at least, describes something that exists in the world, to the extent that it has entries in other languages. Why shouldn't there be an entry in English? drhtl

Comment Isn't this essentially a dictionary definition? --Malcolmxl5 07:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I'd give it a little time - it's sourced, if weakly so, and it's certainly a neat concept, but time will tell if it makes it into mainstream awareness as a word. This is a good example of the value of Wikipedia (even of its Afds) - I might never have heard of this without the AfD, and so one of our goals has been met in a small way: knowledge has been increased. I respectfully ask the nominator, why not? Tvoz |talk 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. This is allegedly a new literary device, and for these things we have a whole body of academics who would have written mucho scholarly articles about it if it were real. Until they teach it in Advanced Creative Writing at NYU, I feel that it doesn't belong here - irrespective of whether it's been mentioned in two poems and one Spanish magazine. -- Y not? 15:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok.... maybe it isn't sourced widely enough yet, but it gets far more Google hits than protologism which Wikidictionary accepted. If you're serious about deleting it, I'd suggest having the article merge into metaphor, with a explanation of pataphor - rather than completely wiping it out and losing the admittedly rudimentary information that's there. (BTW, some people can read Spanish, so it might be good to have the Chilean source article translated - maybe it's more impressive than we assume.) I guess I'm taking an eventualist position on this. I disagree, moreover, with the idea that a concept has to be taught in a college class, even one on Creative Writing, before we accept it - from my experience college professors can be the last ones standing before revising their model and we can do better than that. And I ask, is there some kind of harm being caused by this article remaining in the encyclopedia that I'm missing? Tvoz |talk 20:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmmm... you should see WP:NOHARM :) -- Y not? 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Y.... you know that WP:NOHARM is an essay, not a do-or-die policy. What can I say? I don't agree with it across the board. Tvoz |talk 19:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye, I know... -- Y not? 19:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile, it's being used to justify the notability of Paul Avion, another article on AfD. This is called a walled garden, ladies and gentlemen. -- Y not? 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, as the article on Paul Avion appears to pass WP:Music ("Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"), the article on Paul Avion shows notability, which boosts notability for pataphor by association. Factor in other arguments made above -- a mention in a Chilean newspaper and a other sources, to omit it from Wikipedia strikes me as a decrease in information from Wikipedia without a compelling cause. Jchristie7
Delete as a neologism. Merriam-Webster doesn't have it, Oxford English doesn't have it, and a look through the first hundred or so Google hits gives a repeated appearance of phrases along the lines of "looked it up in Wikipedia..." which suggests that there are no reliable sources - other than those that can be tracked right back to here. One single mention in a Chilean newspaper doesn't equate to multiple, non-trivial references. I fully agree with Y, above - when it gets to the point where it's being used in actual reference material, college courses, etc., then I'll give it a bit more credence. Right now, it has no traction, and cannot be verified. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see my comment above at Corpx. Thanks. -- ExpImp^talkcon 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but needs better sourcing. Bearian 00:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per drhtl and Tvoz. Also, it is one of the greatest pages in wikipedia, at least in my opinion. If it should be deleted nonetheless, add the content as a pragraph to Metaphor.--ExplicitImplicity 17:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard this term used in discussions of M theory and string theory. Not all academic or specialty journals keep archives online, so a Google search may not necessarily turn up all sources verbatim. It seems you have sufficient sources and online (i.e., Google-able) data available to support its continuation. As most people seem to point out on this thread, the case for deleting it seems rather weak (i.e., demanding a greater burden of proof). Danthewhale 04:33, 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 speedy close - AfD is not a place for content disputes, go to WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Non admin close. Giggy _U^CP 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah[edit]

This is a procedural nomination as there is an edit war that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. While the initiation of the AfD was procedural, my opinion is below. First nomination resulting in delete due to a copyright violation here. --Oakshade 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly this person is held in high esteem on a national level Lebanon. The prestigious Arab American Institute considers him a "Famous Arab American" here which is a mirror of their own article here. The Lebanese Embassy in Washington, D.C. put a copy of the content on their website [1]. Whether some stipulations of holding patents in solar cells can be substantiated or not, the person is still notable. There even appears to be a streets in both Beirut and Nabatieh named after him [2] [3] [4]. If you have a street named after you in a major city and national capital, you're notable. --Oakshade 21:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for an article.Harlowraman 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This man appears to have created an impressive number of patents indeed. However, patents are churned out in their hundreds of thousands every year, so it's pretty obvious to me that most of them come from rank-and-file scientists. Furthermore, I know from experience that small countries tend to exaggerate the achievements of their expatriates, promoting them as celebrities when in fact most of them are completely unknown in their host country. I'm not saying it's the case here but I wouldn't put too much faith in a Lebanese source. And nobody has said yet what exactly Mr Sabbah created or helped create. So I'm not sure about his notability but I'll grant him the benefit of doubt.--Targeman 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I don't know what a "notability war" is, but if you do not actually want an article deleted, don't nominate it to try to "win" an editing dispute. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can one "win" an edit war by nominating something for deletion? It's nominated because it's a never ending edit war which I'm tired of and it should be left up to WP:CONSENSUS to decide. I have no control over other users opinion. If consensus wants it deleted, fine. Proceedural nominations are very common. And speedy close to what? Keep? Delete? No Consensus? --Oakshade 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as "shouldn't have been nominated in the first place." Procedural noms are made when a deletion is overturned at WP:DRV. If you are involved in an edit war, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies is where you want to go. Bringing it to this forum simply wastes everyone's time. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not only when procedural noms are made. This nomination is intended to end the constant edit war regarding the notablity of this person. Would you be happy if a user who wants it deleted made the nomination? (that likely would happen soon) What AfD policy that states "Only those who want an article deleted can nominate an article for deletion" are you referring to? --Oakshade 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Deletion of the article would end the edit war, but as you want it kept that does not seem to be your goal. I would be happy if a user who wanted it deleted made the nomination because such a user would be better able to explain why exactly it should be deleted. Do you really need a policy to tell you that "Only those who want an article deleted can [should] nominate an article for deletion?" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per ObiterDicta. AfD is not for content disputes. --Charlene 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not speedy--this is not just a content dispute--the debate of the talk page is over whether his actual accomplishments are sufficiently notable. (about which I take no position) DGG (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then let the editor who is questioning notability make a proper nomination, providing a proper reason for deletion. The edit war from the article's history seems to be about sourcing of various claims, although some of the issues there are related to whether the subject is notable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:17, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo's Cannonball[edit]

Non-notable game show episode. I don't see how it's any different from any other Legends of the Hidden Temple episode ever produced in any way other than changing the artifact, contestants, and winning teams. Thus, it seems this article is redundant with the main LotHT page. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unnotable LotHT episodes):

Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" for these episodes. I dont find any notability in being the first epiosode Corpx 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems I will not be allowed to create a comprehensive list of LotHT episodes due to non-notability (whatever that means), can I modify the episode guide list with a seperate column containing the result of the temple run, information very pertinent to LotHT (Derferman 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

By that same argument, should every episode of Wheel of Fortune be listed with a note stating whether the winning contestant won the bonus round, and if so, for how much? I mean, I personally would like to see such a list, but I just don't think Wikipedia's the place for such a collection of information better suited for a fansite. RJaguar3 | u | t 14:16, 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 merge. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltern Edge School[edit]

No claim of notability is made for the school, nor is it implicit in the article Jack1956 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a high school, which we've been keeping as notable. It's the primary and middle schools that are up for debate. Eliz81 22:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a high school, it is a secondary school. It is quite different to the American concept. Apart from that, there is no Wikipedia guideline which states that either secondary schools or high schools are inherently notable. All schools have to conform to WP:N. The article as it currently stands makes no claim for the school's notability. Jack1956 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reading, Berkshire article as it is nothing more then just location and enrollment with the principal mentionned.--JForget 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sonning Common unless additional material can be uncovered to more clearly demonstrate notability. Alansohn 02:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on Sonning Common. (The school is in Sonning not Reading.) until someone is ready to expand the article so that it justifies its own page. 11:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I would support Merge.Jack1956 12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sonning Common. This didn't need an AfD to do this and such negligible stubs should be handled in such a manner as a normal editing process. TerriersFan 23:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced facts to the locality. -- But|seriously|folks 18:38, 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 per WP:NEO. When the website you link to to back your claim up is not only your own site but merely a placeholder page from the registrar, I'd say you fail any sort of notability. More or less stealth spam. Daniel Case 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trackdoctor[edit]

Article was nominated by Totnesmartin (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as a neologism, saying that "There is no such term in sound recording". However, that is not a speedy deletion criteria. Procedural nomination; I abstain. Mike Peel 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, borderline spam. Blueboy 96 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - No sources that expand on the term Corpx 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. *drew 15:37, 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 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Order Of Thoth[edit]

About three quarters of this article (the section titled "2 THOTH") are copied and pasted from Thoth, violating the GFDL in a needless duplication. For the rest, including claims like Merlin and Archimedes having been members of this "secret society", sources are missing (no, "Refferences & Sources: Wikipedia History Channel World Book Encyclopedia Discover Magazine etc." does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Citing sources). High on a tree 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Not even worth a redirect. -- RHaworth 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the offending section, but the rest looks made up. Even if there was an ancient Egyptian order of that name, there's no evidence of it today. The top google hit for "order of thoth" is a livejournal community. Ditch this and let someone who knows their Egyptology recreate it if necessary. Totnesmartin 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not attributed and from Google searches not attributable. --Charlene 21:42, 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 both. Sr 13 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 in fiction and 2007 in fiction[edit]

An orphaned grab-bag of random trivial facts from different fictional contexts. These works have absolutely nothing in common other than being fictional and happening to reference a shared aribtrary number for a year. Note that the year project explicitly rejected putting fictional dates in real year articles as useless trivia; sequestering this useless trivia in its own article doesn't suddenly make it useful.

By the way, minor fictional points are generally considered to fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#IINFO, and sorting things by in-universe dates fails WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - I don't think you can have a more "loosely" connected criteria than this. While I'm not sure if "useless" (by itself) is a reason to delete any more than "useful" is a reason to keep, AMiB brings up a lot of other problematic issues with the list. ◄Zahakiel ► 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless is a reason to delete because...well, Wikipedia doesn't need anything useless. Useful isn't an argument to keep in the face of other arguments to delete because there are lots of useful things that aren't part of Wikipedia's mission. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that in principle. What I mean is that "useless" is often a judgment call on the part of individuals, and needs to be carefully argued in AfDs. But you know that already; as I'd mentioned, your other reasons coupled with it were quite on-target. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. "Useless" is kind of like "IAR"; you need to explain your reasoning in detail or it's empty proclaimation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly trivia articles and likely incompleteJForget 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Canonical indiscriminate information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them both as pure trivia. Useight 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. One would expect an article named Year x in fiction to be about trends and tendencies in fiction in the year mentioned, and to have references to third parties discussing the year in fiction. These articles are just lists of what a few editors think are 'notable' works of fiction. No attribution as to why these works are being singled out. --Charlene 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and above. Bearian 00:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I'm aware of the origin of these, which began before the years 2006 and 2007, when people were recounting how these years were viewed in fiction written before those years. After 2006 and 2007 transpired, the "fictional" part had to be separated from the original article, since the fictional events couldn't very well be kept with the actual events. Thus, "2007 in fiction" has a reference to a 1992 film called "Wild Palms" that was set 15 years "in the future". I hate to scare all of you, but the article for 2008 has 2008 in fiction as a sub-article called "2008 in fiction". Naturally, you would want to delete that since it contains "useless" material and GASP crystalballing (events that HAVEN"T HAPPENED YET). However, there is a purpose for these "--- in fiction" articles in that they are records of what science fiction authors, etc., envisioned (usually incorrectly) for 2006 and 2007 such as moonbases and flying cars. One has to be literate in science fiction to understand that stuff, but that's why it's called "2007 in fiction" instead of "2007 in real life". Anyway, no real reason to delete this or any other articles of that nature, since obviously they can't be merged back into the original article 165.166.14.50 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Articles do nothing to explain notability of these particular use of these years. At the moment they are just lists. Nigel Ish 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Science fiction is stupid. You hit it right on the head when you said that these were incorrectly predictions. None of the people on here is notable. I never heard of Joe Haldeman, but I think he was Nixon's aide. I've heard of Robert Hienlein but the only thing he ever did was Starship Troopers. It's not a matter of being literate. Wikipedia is not a bookstore for science fiction writers. This is dumb. 165.166.14.50 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you said is a reason to delete this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per what User:165.166 said (the first post anyway-- can't see why he/she wants to keep it if he thinks Joe Haldeman and Robert A. "Hienlein" are "stupid". I can't figure out the nominator either, unless the last post is from someone pretending to be Men in Bl[]ck. This shouldn't be merged into the articles about '06 and '07. I think that people blur the line too much between fantasy and reality as it is. Most Wikipedians have never seen another Great Dane besides Scooby Doo, I think. Perhaps rather than having separate articles for "2006 in fiction" and "2007 in fiction", there should be something encompassing the Twenty-first Century as viewed by science fiction authors, which is something that's been done by people like Edward Bellamy in Looking Backward and Arthur C. Clarke in 2001 (the novel with HAL, not the year 2001). This stuff has a place somewhere, maybe not in a zillion different articles. Mandsford 23:34, 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 nomination withdrawn. Daniel Case 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Munden Primary School[edit]

Speedy delete The article makes no claim for notability for this school, nor is it implicit in the article Jack1956 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep In view of the work done on the article I withdraw my nomination for deletion Jack1956 11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has ref to DEFS website which is a secodary source as required by WP:ORG making it notable. A link to OFSTED report could be added for a further source. Keith D 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information supporting a claim to notability should be cited in the article, surely? Apart from that, I'm not sure that the secondary source quoted is indicative of notability. Jack1956 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ORG says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." which is the case regardless of it been quoted or not. Keith D 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All schools will have OfSTED and DfES entries. These shouldn't be cited as prime sources of notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Elementary school with no evidence of notability shown. Saying that the DEFS statistics confer notability is like saying that a health inspector's report confers notability on a restaurant. Deor 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most primary school included this one does not deserve in independant article but can be included in regional article.--JForget 22:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep Seems to be more correctly known as Little Munden Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School. Seems to be a lot of different sources under this name on Google. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved - the Ofsted report confirms this as the correct title. TerriersFan 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even using that name, I'm not getting anything from Google except directory listings and statistics on pupil performance, such as one might get for any elementary school. What's there that establishes notability or that could be used to expand the article? Deor 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. Just your average primary school Corpx 02:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless there's a regional article to merge it into. Schools are- by their nature- something of notable interest. If someone wants to find out about Schools in the area, or is researching previous students. It hasn't been mentioned in this article yet, but the School does have a significant history (it predates the whole concept of "elementary school" for example). And Herbert Gladstone, 1st Viscount Gladstone is buried in the adjoining church. No need to spend all this time deleting it when it could just be expanded. There's much better targets for AfD, at least the subject of this article is real, unlike some things on Wikipedia. Chriswiki 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (Original Editor)[reply]
Comment The article must be rated as it is, not as it might be. No claim to notability can be judged from the article. Being old doesn't necessarily make it notable [I'm old and I'm not notable]; nor does some one being buried in the church next door make the school notable Jack1956 10:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you live long enough eventually you will become notable :-) TerriersFan 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Just another school. Eusebeus 10:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've now updated the article to include references and an indication as to its notability. There is no doubt plenty more which could be added given some extra time. The school has a very long history (it is nearly 200 years old) and was originally the only school in the whole parish. It is also located in a Grade II listed building, which indicates that it is a building of architectural importance. The OFTSED report doesn't confer notability in its own right as all schools in England and Wales are inspected but it could be used as a source to expand the article further. Dahliarose 11:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it's the building that's notable, and not the school? OFSTEd reports can confer notability if, for example, the school was reported as being 'outstanding'. Is that the case here? Jack1956 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's both - listed building and a historic school. TerriersFan 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge, important part of the history of the village, and the subject of multiple nontrivial independent coverage. Kappa 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support Merge.Jack1956 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This school is nearly 180 years old, and that is old even by UK standards. Further, this is a Grade II Listed Building defined as 'buildings of special architectural or historic interest' which, in itself, confers some notability. There are sufficient sources available to provide scope for expansion. This is a useful addition to Wikipedia's coverage of historic buildings. TerriersFan 16:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - listed building, historic school. PamD 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple sources added to the article and the age and notability of the building all contribute to establishing notability under the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 05:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dahliarose, TerriersFan and Alansohn. Xn4 06:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:34, 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. Sr 13 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Guralnick[edit]

This article was originally nominated for CSD, but the tag was removed by User:RobGuralnick (not the page's creator)... in fact, the last three edits to the page were made by him. While this person seems like a great professor, I believe that this fails WP:BIO (in addition to concerns about WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and the like). Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not my area, so correct me if I'm wrong, but per a quick scan of his CV, as an Associate Professor with only around 35 publications, none of which seem especially groundbreaking, and no major awards or invited society memberships, Guralnick doesn't seem currently to meet WP:PROF. Assuming RobGuralnick is the same guy, I wouldn't oppose userifying the current page, with a view to reassessing his notability in the future. Espresso Addict 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Expresso Addict. He's not notable and the page reads like a profile at a university website. - Shudde ^talk 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete. Bearian 00:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria. *drew 15:39, 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 per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people famous for singing badly[edit]

Delete listcruft. Unnecessary list. -- SECisek 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research to boot. Besides, what qualifications are necessary to be on that list? What may be a bad singer to someone might be good to someone else. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a list of bad singers, it's a list of people who are famous for singing badly. It's not a matter of someone's opinion, it's a matter of collective opinion. That said, delete it if you want, but certainly not for that particularly ridiculous reason. I'm happy to have it gone from Florence Foster Jenkins's article. (Where the research was equally original, or not.) - Nunh-huh 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original research is that there is no attribution. It looks like the decision about who belongs on this page has been made by an editor and not by cited, attributed, non-trivial third parties. Shatner for one is not famous for singing badly: he's famous for acting. --Charlene 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But have you heard his Tambourine Man and Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds? Egads! :) Eliz81 21:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's more accurately described as infamous for singing badly. —Travis ^talk 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that he wasn't famous for singing badly: he was famous for acting badly. But that was a bit silly and not NPOV. --Charlene 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research per RJaguar3. --Charlene 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJaguar3.--Targeman 21:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to subject a list like this to WP:V. (e/c) Eliz81 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and listcruft. Shatner does sing badly, though. —Travis ^talk 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, listcruft, listcruft. --RandomOrca2 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Listcruft, subjective, possible BLP issues. Blueboy 96 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, Original Research, and pretty subjective. Useight 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alas, as it tends towards Original research and subjectivity. But, at least because of it, I saw the Florence Foster Jenkins' the first lady of the sliding scale description, so thanks for that ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, OR, subjective. Stuff like this makes wikipedia suck. --RedHillian 13:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. And Shatner is a legendary singer! Lugnuts 18:07, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Match Game 7x episodes[edit]

This is an indiscriminate collection of information that is fancruft to boot, no matter how much this is expanded. Game show episodes are not notable in themselves. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just indiscriminate but has almost no context. Article has not been substantially updated since February and appears to be orphaned. --Charlene 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. *drew 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into article about The Match Game. Although the TV show was a classic in daytime ribaldry, little is served by having a separate article to tell us when Charles Nelson Reilly was on TV. The only thing worse than Wikipedia being TV Guide is for Wikipedia to be 1973 TV Guide. 165.166.14.50 20:36, 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 not only per WP:SNOW but as fundamentally too open and unmaintainable. Daniel Case 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of technologies[edit]

This is mostly just a list of completely random words such as boob, dustpan and yatzee (sic). Furthermore any real technologies are better categorized by the Wikipedia categories they are already in. KelleyCook 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copper? Dustpan? Boobs? It's just a random collection of articles not involving persons, as far as I can see. --Charlene 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an extensive list of random words. I really don't see how this is useful. TheCatalyst31 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't the template and categories enough? A separate repetitive article like this which is possibly incomplete is not necessary.--JForget 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL, what is this? "list of loosely associated topics" - WP:NOT Corpx 02:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this could be made into a category, maybe. But this list isn't really all that maintainable and would be extraordinarily long. Actually, it's already pretty long. Useight 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any list that lists together "COBOL" and "Electric chair", and "Umbrella" and "Pound-force", has to be good for comedic value, but I'm not sure how a list of technologies could be made. It'd be too wide a topic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 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 as unverifiable and OR, as of now. Daniel Case 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur Unreleased List[edit]

Completely original research, unverifiable information. east.718 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, blatant vio of WP:V.--JForget 23:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article states "Also note, that all tracks on this list have been confirmed." If sources can be found, then I'd change to keep; I'm not expecting anything reliable to surface though. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:35, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time[edit]

List of a bunch of characters from a single game. Most are unnotable and most are unsourceable. DurinsBane87 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable to anyone interested in Zelda-related materials. If you just want sources this is far from "unsourceable." Sources can be added via the official Zelda site, Zelda information sites and even some game guidebooks; I have a few I could use as sources myself. It's also definitely not just a "list," as there's quite a bit of information here on each character, all of whom have major roles in the story and most of whom appear in multiple games in the series, thansk to the focus on OOT-era characters in Majora's Mask and The Minish Cap. --Bishop2 20:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four of them have been in other games, and in Majora's mask they werent the same characters, just the same models. We don't have lists for every "major" character from other video games. God of War has similar one shot characters with one or two purposes, but there's not a seperate article for them. Just because a character is notable in the game itself doesn't mean that it's notable in the overall world of video games. I doubt Ocarina of time would have been any less succesful if, say, Fado, didn't exist. She barely showed up in the game, and had maybe like 5 lines of dialoge. DurinsBane87 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FICT having similar content, but trim a lot. I don't understand how something like Runescape gods can be kept and this not. Andre (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in need of clean up and sources, but I think it makes a good support article to the main The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. (Guyinblack25 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - As far as I can tell, OoT characters were pretty recognized in the gaming world (maybe not as much as FFVII, but still...), and notable games are allowed to have a "list of characters" thing, unless characters are a miniscule part of the game itself - this game is character driven, so no. Besides, deleting the article would mean we would have to put the main characters in their own articles (since quite a few aren't recurring), which would actually worsen any notability problems this one has. Also, it is pretty source-able, since news articles and the official sites talked about the characters - we could use them.KrytenKoro 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable characters from a game oft considered "Best Ever". Useight 23:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be cleaned up a bit - it seems that some of the lesser known characters have their own articles which seems over the top. However I would still keep this. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and close. I'm no gamer, but I agree with the reasoning above. Zelda is a character-driven game, so a list of the characters is valid in my opinion. Article needs cleanup and sources (outside my league, sorry), but I think it's good enough to stay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep easily notable, and can definitely be sourced to primary sources, as well as secondary sources like game guides, reviews, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the few list pages which isn't just the characters names. Notable. Fin ©™ 10:28, 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 as empty article that violated WP:CRYSTAL. Daniel Case 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MinuteMen[edit]

placeholder for speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted too Ebyabe 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slated for a 2008 release. Not much info online beyond one named actor and simple story outline. Not really enough for an article until next year, if it even gets made. Totnesmartin 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. "There's no there there."-Alice B. Toklas. Bearian 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you want a page to stay on Wikipedia, you have to write some content. Pages without written content are of no use on Wikipedia. Cedars 03:40, 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 no consensus to delete, any merging/redirecting is an editorial decision. Sandstein 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooliganism[edit]

article is filled with rewrite templates, its soccer material is redundant with or should be merged into football hooliganism, and a general hooliganism for all sports article is not needed as non-soccer-related violence is not usually referred to as "hooliganism". Luvcraft 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even a cursory glance showed me that there are definitions of hooliganism that have no relation to sport (in fact hooliganism -football -soccer still gets 2 million Ghits). Yes it needs work, so do the work, Luvcraft, instead of AfDing a notable topic. Totnesmartin 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about the topic to do the work. If you know enough about it, please improve the article. As it stands right now it's an unreadable mess of "reference" templates, which tells me that the article is worthless or its been trolled. Whichever is the reason, the results of an AfD will sort it out. Luvcraft 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral "Hooliganism" was also a blanket word used by Soviet officials to charge anyone with doing anything the officials didn't like, such as standing up for one's rights, demonstrating, etc. I can't find a reference in English for this, though, except The Straight Dope (and is that a reliable source?). --Charlene 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into football hooliganism, create separate article for the Russian хулиганство, and a disambiguation page for "hooliganism". --Targeman 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect, and disambiguate per Targeman. If "football hooliganism" is too specific to cover hooliganism in other sports, rename football hooliganism to hooliganism in sports. Wl219 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Targeman Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Football hooliganism (where "football" is understood to mean "soccer."). I am familiar with "hooliganism" being used to describe rioting and violence by soccer fans, but I have not seen the term used in US newspapers to describe incidents at US football games. The only other use of the term I am familiar with is by Red China in bygone days to describe any behavior they didn't like. "Hooligan" in the US was pretty much used to refer to the cartoon character Happy Hooligan, which probably also describes those who bash skulls at soccer matches. Edison 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed most of the football-relted material, except in the Argentina section where their hooligans have been used for non-football purposes. Please look again at the article and see if it stands up. Totnesmartin 09:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still think there's no reason not to merge the article with football hooliganism. The definition would do nicely there, and the Argentinian exception can be added as a side note. The Russian concept of hooliganism, which is different, deserves it own article. And I think hooliganism should redirect to football hooliganism because that's what it means to most people. A disambig for hooliganism in Russia could be added in the header. What do you think? --Targeman 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems a fair deal. There's no article specifically about Crime in Russia - should I start one with this material? Totnesmartin 11:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Antisocial behavior. Hooliganism isn't just limited to sports. Disruptive behaviour in society can be seen as Hoolignaism, as well as antisocial behaviour, I feel.--Kylohk 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand On second thought, since Antisocial behaviour is considered a mental disorder, they might as well expand the article to cover specific examples like vandalism, etc.--Kylohk 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to football hooliganism, per Edison. Giggy _U^CP 22:33, 23 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 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rock[edit]

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - until it's not a rumor, it doesn't belong. Jauerback 19:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reasons as Minutemen AfD above. Totnesmartin 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which now exists under Minutemen (film)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS. -- MarcoTolo 02:26, 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 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croeserw Football Club[edit]

Non notable football club in a non notable football league. 16 distinct Google hits for the football league[5], only 5 for Croeserw football club[6]. Club has only 35 players, no notable history (established in 1992, never played in a higher league), stadium with a capacity of 250, ... Fails WP:NOTE. Fram 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they only play in their local district, have never won anything, and even their ground improvements cost less than a small house (oh god, I'm starting on about house prices - shoot me someone!) Totnesmartin 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has a rather confusing history. It seems as though someone has hijacked a stub article about an industrial estate, Croeserw, moved and renamed the article then created what we now see as an article about the football club. --Malcolmxl5 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still not notable though. --Malcolmxl5 21:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Harlowraman 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Number 5 7 08:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAs mentioned above, the original article was not about a football club at all, the original article was re-directed to this. Is it an option to re-instate that article or not? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original (v. v. v. stubby) version is still in the edit history. Just leave out the part about bloke being abducted by aliens and becoming an emo, which doesn't seem to have references. Totnesmartin 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but this version [7] didn't include the emo loving alien..... :) However, my vote would be to revert to the original version using the article name of Croeserw - if that counts as a vote of course! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. *drew 15:51, 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 and protected by Shell Kinney. Non-admin closure. Charlene 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Robinson[edit]

This was JUST deleted. It still a bio of a non-notable individual, all of the refs are to original work (Test and Evaluations through the government) that hardly meet notability. Also probably COI (new author, same content, possible sock). superβεεcat 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orignal AfD - resulted in speedy

Speedy Delete - as a repost, and so added. Jauerback 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Airman featured in this article is, in fact, notable in the field of digital forensics. The "original work" are items that SrA Robinson contributed to the field of digital forensics. Government sources are allowed to be cited as references. The references are not self-published. Further, not all items are Test and Evaluations. There are several study/white papers referenced as well as links to references showing SrA Robinson's selection for enlisted commissioning programs (only 29% selection rate for the year 2007). Also, there are references to outside biographical sources and to condirm SrA Robinson briefing at the Annual DoD Cyber Crime Conference, a conference with over 700 attendees. While SrA Robinson may not be an international superstar, he is certainly a key (and notable) figure in the field of digital forensics and the United States Air Force. Further, the original article that was deleted did, in fact, fail to meet notability requirements. That article, posted by Cyrus Robinson himself, was done so at my request because I did not yet have a wikipedia account, and it was poorly written. After superbeecat's original complaint, I created an article myself and in my own interest. superbeecat is implying that Cyrus has a fake "sock" account set up to create this article. Cyrus' IP address is in the Reston, Va-Washington, DC area. I am posting from an IP address outside of Wichita, KS. superbeecat is making false allegations concerning this article, and seems to have a personal grudge with this article. Following the "good faith" and "edit boldly" policies set forth by Wikipedia, I argue that for the general interest of the digital forensic and United States military communities, this article should remain listed. Please undelete this article.Imnotfamous 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references (except the last one, the student list) are marked as "available to US governmental agencies and law enforcement request only". Contrary to your assumption, such internal documents are not eligible for citing them as references on Wikipedia - only published sources are. Regards, High on a tree 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as User:Imnotfamous has blanked the page. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the blank page. That was unintentional and has been corrected.Imnotfamous 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete just accept it and move on.Merkinsmum 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Merkinsmum did not provide any rebuttal to the arguement listed above or rational for his call for deletion.Afcyrus
Delete. Despite the tome written above, Cyrus Robinson is simply not notable per WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. --Charlene 21:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Admin - page was speedy deleted, then completely re-created before this page could be changed. --Charlene 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Computer Science student studying at Louisiana State University, I can attest the article posted should be accepted and reinstated. SrA Robinson is not a "non-notable individual" as the original poster states. Rather, the work he has done in the field of digital forensics, as well as the sources used are indeed Government sources. The individual mentioned by this article is sincere, and the account used to post the article is not just another fake spam or "sock" account. The article should remain posted, as it references valuable and pertinent information in the digial forensics domain.spartas 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*do not delete Please specify what sections of WP:NOTE or WP:BIO were not met. I request that you please tell me where notability requirements have not been met.

WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm)

The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source)

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls)

The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors)

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)

Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Arguable)Afcyrus 21:26, 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 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown: She's the Witch[edit]

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, variation on already deleted article Halloweentown: She's a Witch, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem to have been through AfD before, so db-repost doesn't apply, but delete nevertheless per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice against recreation when and if there is something to say on the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, and WP:CRYSTAL Giggy _U^CP 02:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fan speculation. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:42, 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 01:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dadnapped[edit]

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view unless sourced before end of AFD. Bridgeplayer 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No articles as per speculation .Harlowraman 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a Yahoo! and Google search. Their are many reliable sources.LAUGH90 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But none are included in the article itself, so unfortunately that doesn't help. -Ebyabe 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan speculation. Haven't seen any Reliable sources for it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:42, 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, like all the other future Disney Channel program articles, as currently unverifiable and speculative. Daniel Case 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon Z4[edit]

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view unless sourced before end of AFD. Bridgeplayer 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using a search engine, the results consist of mostly either blogs, forum topics, and TV.com and ImDb entires. There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources supporting it.--Kylohk 08:49, 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 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin B.C.[edit]

Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ebyabe Harlowraman 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as their are many reliable sources on this DCOM.LAUGH90 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the provided tv.com reference, I haven't been able to find another source (disclaimer: "looking" in this case equals "five minutes of web searching"). Correction: I haven't been able to find another non-blog/-Myspace ref. Fails WP:RS (i.e. not the subject of multiple reliable sources). -- MarcoTolo 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan speculation. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:40, 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 without prejudice per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if and when the game looks like it's really about to be released. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rising 2[edit]

A Stub about a game that isn't even confirmed. There's no evidence to it being made outside of a mistranslation. DurinsBane87 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL until such time that an actual game is confirmed or released. --Charlene 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and quickly. The sources provided are all nothing more than discussions of a rumor arising from a mistranslation. ●DanMS • Talk 00:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as pure speculation. — brighterorange (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Capcom hasn't confirmed that there will be a sequel" enough said. QuagmireDog 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. -- MarcoTolo 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation. Fin ©™ 10:23, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sift Heads 2[edit]

I really don't think this is very notable, its not a page that should be in an Encyclopedia, but a page that should be in a strategy guide, and overall this doesn't seem to have any use on Wikipedia Zac4213 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea how notable this game is, but if it is, then it should be re-written to remove all the cheats and "how-to"-ness in the article. Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Actually I'll go and do that now. Totnesmartin 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and there ain't a lot left! Totnesmartin 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reverted an edit on that page, but there is still no notability established for this fictional character Corpx 02:22, 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 both per WP:SNOW as WP:NFT. I have a very bad philling about them ... Daniel Case 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil good[edit]

Neologisms with no references (WP:Neologism, WP:V); just a self-referential walled garden. Prod contested. Marašmusïne_Talk 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I tried to think of why it should stay or what the page was really about and I just got a headache instead. If it is short for philip the good isn't it enough to just make a mention on the page for him? If not, I don't see it belonging anywhere else. NobutoraTakeda 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as the expressions are self-confessed restricted to a corner of Michigan, not notable either. --Malcolmxl5 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like something created in school one day, no reliable sources and unable to find anything to back the terms existence. Davewild 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, unattributed and (after Google searches) likely unattributable. At best, both expressions fail WP:NEO and WP:ATT. --Charlene 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not for things made up ... someplace, anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, unattributed and likely unattributable. At best, both expressions fail WP:NEO --SECisek 20:49, 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 Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryde City Gunners Football Club[edit]

Ryde City Gunners Football Club was speedy-deleted db-copyvio of http://www.rydecitygunners.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=44 .
User:Ryde City Gunners Football Club edited page Ryde City Gunners Football Club.
Some of the matter in Ryde City Gunners Football Club also appears in page User:Ryde City Gunners Football Club.

It could be that the same people wrote Ryde City Gunners Football Club and http://www.rydecitygunners.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=44 .

This raises suspicion of autobiography and spam. Anthony Appleyard 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's an copyvio, c&p from [8], it seems. --Malcolmxl5 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Why is this on AFD anyway the SD tag should of been left. ExtraDry 23:17, 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 speedily deleted by Ugen64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in country music[edit]

A bad idea to begin with, this article is poorly written and unsourced. Hemlock Martinis 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a shining of example of what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Indiscriminate list of information at it's finest. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seem to be many problems. Here are just two: One, what is the inclusion for "minority"? Women are counted as "minority" by many even though they represent 51% of the population. Two, to compile this information seems like OR unless you can find a third party link that talks about the minority status of each person mentioned. NobutoraTakeda 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but original research. Unsourced. Poorly written. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. This (very slow!) may originally be scraped from an internal Billboard.com page. (The navigation buttons at the bottom were a big clue the text wasn't typed in.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is also a trivial intersection of two topics. Useight 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above.--Targeman 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and the article is completely disorganized.--JForget 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Dhartung. No prejudice against recreation as an article (instead of a list with vague inclusion criteria). cab 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per indiscriminate list of information and trivial intersection of two topics. Spellcast 01:45, 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 both as failing WP:BAND (only one CD). 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shufflepuck[edit]

Shufflepuck and Adam Orth appear to both be non-notable. Couldn't find much about them and the only source I could find seems is a myspace page. -WarthogDemon 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete this one's pretty obvious - clearly non notable either of them - ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete neither notable, close but just not quite speediable. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey now, i've been updating and adding to it as I learn my way around Wikipedia. Just because YOU might think they are unotable, doesnt mean people who listen to that genre of music don't find them/him unotable. This band has ment a great deal to me, and many others. Their members have branced out into other popular bands (Weezer, Nerf herder, Ridel High) and I think they deserve a page as much as anyone else, or at least a bit more time to attempt to put everything together. I mean, come on.. 20 minutes after the first post to it you want it deleted? Let it at least have enough time to develope. ManyLists 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please relax. I never said they weren't notable. I said they APPEAR to be non-notable. Which is why I put this up. Feel free to edit and give more notability to all the pages; from what you told me it sounds like if you add enough information and sources, they'll look notable enough for us to keep the articles. For now, please don't remove the afd tags and try not to be frustrated. I know how you feel - this has happened to me before, but attacks aren't going to help. -WarthogDemon 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see enough in the way of reliable sources to indicate notability for the band; the only items that bring it near to WP:MUSIC may be the one album (though usually two or more make me more comfortable) and the members who had been involved - but again, it's hard to verify that from the sources I turned up. Glad to reconsider if someone finds other sources, though. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I wasnt trying to be rude. I Just dont see how you want something deleted only minutes after it is posted. I would hope that you would want people to take tehir time and update it correctly. *shrug* I've been updating more and such, so hopefully it's enough. But what has both pages I put up been linked together? I understand Adam is the singer of Shufflepuck, but now he's a head game seigner for Sony...and really that page shouldnt be connected to the bands page. ManyLists 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) ManyLists[reply]
Comment So where is everyone now that I've done massive updates??? =( ManyLists 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)ManyLists[reply]

Delete. No direct assertion of notability (though WP:BAND is the real guideline in this case), no reliable sources, and, finally, Wikipedia is not Myspace. -- MarcoTolo 01:09, 22 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} 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Avion and Pop Music United[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:OR. Total lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. -- Y not? 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Hmmm borderline -its no different to many thousands of articles on wikipedia that are of the same ilk . He has toured with many notable musicians but the article doesn't site any reliable professional sources to assert notability. It s difficult to draw the line with notability often -it depends on how much coverage you want wikipedia to have. I'd suggest find some professional references and if not delete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Hmmm... sounds like WP:SEWAGE -- Y not? 18:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to draw the line with notability here, as the inquiry can satisfactorily end way back at verifiability. · jersyko talk 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His notability seems to exist only from his proximity to notable figures and not to anything accomplished on his own. NobutoraTakeda 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable in reliable sources. · jersyko talk 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability, fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Possible {{db-band}}-worthy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sort of drifts towards WP:MUSIC with some of the claims, but the albums all appear to be self-produced, and I can't track any sources that verify the claims. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Paul Avion is actually more notable for the creation of the "pataphor" than for music. There are interwikis for the pataphor in French, Spanish and Polish, at least one YouTube movie concerning the pataphor, and board discussions in English, Spanish and French on the Web. But mainly, it appears in literary magazines, and even appeared in a Chilean newspaper article about the Chilean government, a verifiable linked source to a "real" newspaper. See: http://www.elclarin.cl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5947&Itemid=1189 For what all that's worth, he is the author of that concept. -- drhtl
- Wow... that article is even worse. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pataphor -- Y not? 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This passes WP:Music #6: "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"; you can see the membership of this band is comprised of Korel Tunador, current member of The Goo Goo Dolls, Nick Lucero, a member of Queens of the Stone Age, and Tanya Haden, sister of Petra Haden, who has also played with the Silversun Pickups. The albums were produced by Ben Mumphrey, producer of Frank Black of The Pixies' album, "Devil's Workshop," and Scott Benzel of Machines of Loving Grace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jchristie7 (talk • contribs). (Edited 7/20 for emphasis) - Jchristie7 20:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jchristie7. Bearian 01:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per JChristie7. He seems to be one of the borderline-cases, but as he seems to be quite creative and knows lots of people it can be expected that he is going to become more notable in the future. His press page seems also to confirm at least some notability. -- ExpImp^talkcon 19:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with ExImp, I also prefer to stick to the letter of the law. (Call me a purist.) After re-reading all of the above I agree with Jersyko (if I understood him correctly). The notability is not in question; just verifiability. However, one can see that the article's claims of affiliation with notable musicians are true and sourced, satisfying both WP:Music and WP:V. Sufficient grounds for keeping this article according to Wikipedia's own policies on the issue. Jchristie7 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like Wikipedia for the discussion of content changes, that people actually talk about what is the problem, not just sticking to the law. :) -- ExpImp^talkcon 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point! :) I guess I was just saying that I appreciate your points of view, but also feel, like Jersyko, that the article's validity can end with verifiability, as notability is already satisfied according to WP:Music #6. Jchristie7 00:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search engine results return a lot of myspace and youtube videos, insufficient for establishing notablity. There are no hints of whether he's won any awards, sold a gold certified record or entered any charts. Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. If he really was a member of a notable band, he ought to be redirected to that, instead of having his own article.--Kylohk 11:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Music doesn't say he needs a gold record or charted, or to be "part of" a notable band. WP:Music says: "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: #6 Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." The key phrase is "any one of" the following criteria, not "all of the following criteria" or "two of the following," etc. Level of fame (gold records, awards, etc.) is not the issue. The notability of this is satisfied according to the exact requirement of WP:Music. Furthermore, you can see that the artist's associations with these musicians exist in articles for the Goo Goo Dolls, Queens of the Stone Age, Silversun Pickups, etc. These associations are not disputed. UK Radio Station Jchristie7 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JChristie7 Pata1 19:09, 22 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 Corpx 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McGinn[edit]

Non-notable musician and filmmaker. She was in some bands that played some shows; she made a short film and put it on YouTube. Nothing seems to even approach notability. No reliable sources; most references are trivial. Prod removed without comment. Precious Roy 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is quite deceptive - it looks decent enough but when you read it you can see little claim to notability and the sources are an exact reflection of this -youtube and myspace. If some professional sources can be found that assert notablility then keep but if not delete. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Maybe someday... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Much as I love and respect the RPM Challenge, the entries are almost by definition amateur performers without contracts. --Dhartung | Talk 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. --Malcolmxl5 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-band}}, so tagged. Absolutely no notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, they are not limited to Greenville, since they got as far as this year's Asheville Music Jamboree. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:08, 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 -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black prints tomorrow[edit]

Non-notable band, no claims of notability other than "they were on a radio show". No reliable sources to show notability as well. Wildthing61476 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claim of notability, nice fat clean zero on google, article created with {{db-band}} so qualifies as "author requests deletion". Weregerbil 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actualy per this [9], it was speedied earlier and the author just copy and pasted the article with the tag. Wildthing61476 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. In all likelihood, a hoax. Precious Roy 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-repost}} since article was previously nuked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically, it's not a violation of G4, as it wasn't deleted in an AfD. Reposted speedy deletions don't fall under CSD G4. Wildthing61476 19:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they should be... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, especially since article was posted before and speedied before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:08, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lankan cricket articles:various

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

The result was move to Wiktionary and delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-ist[edit]

This is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia. For every occupation, political flavor, philosophical school, artictic trend, religious figure or sect, and whats not there is the corresponding "-ist", tens of thousands of them. `'Míkka 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. Liransh 17:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not pointless but clearly should be moved to Wiktionary not here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This made me laugh, well at least the this is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia LOL. I agree though, definitely either move to wictionary, or delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Compiled similar as a fifth-grade homework assignment (dumber guy managed to find more than me, though!). --Dhartung | Talk 19:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary already has an article on the suffix. --Charlene 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki everything in the Category:Suffixes tree to wiktionary. (Is this an alternate navigation scheme? It has a list of articles...) 132.205.93.83 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - people try much to hard to create articles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion-"ist". Trivial list. Useight 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Is 'vacationist' really a word? EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- "Grammar" comes under encyclopedia, definitely not under dictionary. No dictionary mentions anything about grammer. Also consider other articles(added table), how these can be accommodated in wikitionary? These suffixes add some tone to the words which needs to be described properly, "description" comes under encyclopedia. There are many article in wikipedia about grammar, i need not mention. As for list of words, ~~they can be moved to wikitionary~~, but only list, i think even this is uncalled for. user:Lara_bran 08:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words in the list points to related article in encyclopedia, do not say their "meaning", should not be moved. Dictionary is limited only to "meaning".(Somebody did all this with sufficient effort, please dont laugh at nor ridicule valuable contributions.) user:Lara_bran 09:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with revisions. The word listing should be deleted; a cross-link to Wiktionary is needed; the main body should relate to an encyclopedic treatment of the suffix (sans list). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:00, 22 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 as sources establish notability. Daniel Case 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Walsh (coach)[edit]

I really don't think a former assistant coach is notable enough for an article, especially if it is to be so miniscule, somewhat unsourced and even trivial. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you do some research, you'll see that he does pass WP:BIO. Some articles I found on Lexis-Nexis:

Michael Hurd. "Walsh will call plays for Raiders." USA TODAY. 1 October 1992. Pg. 12C.
Nancy Gay. "Raiders' Walsh says game's still the same." San Francisco Chronicle. 31 July 2006. Pg. D8.
Josh Dubow. "Raiders assistant makes journey From Idaho B&B to NFL sideline" AP. 1 August 2006.
David White. "Shell stands by his coach; Raiders' Walsh is still upbeat." San Francisco Chronicle. 6 November 2006. Pg. D1
Steve Corkran. "Walsh out as offensive coordinator; Shoop will call plays for NFL's worst offense." San Jose Mercury News. 29 November 2006.
Jason Jones. "Shoop tries to avoid pitfalls that led to Walsh's downfall." Sacramento Bee 2 December 2006.

There are others, as well. And really, offensive coordinators are far more significant than any of the 1-career-NFL-game benchwarmers who get articles on Wikipedia. Zagalejo 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm by no means a football fan but an offensive coordinator for a professional team is pretty clearly notable. Judging by career moves many of them are ranked at the same level as top college coaches. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong speedy keep. Notable for being a former assistant coach in the NFL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Speedy keep per User:DS1953's sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources above give an indication of notability, I'd say. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add references. Even if all NFL coaches aren't notable, one with that many articles written about him specifically (even in attack) passes WP:BIO on his own merits. --Charlene 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable to me Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and I added some sources). -- DS1953 ^talk 23:54, 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. Daniel Case 05:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayo-Smith's Pyramid[edit]

I have proposed this article for deletion according to WP:NN. This article fails to meet the criteria set forth as follows:

Significant Coverage: Single source provided covers only the topic of the article as an illustration.
Reliable: The single source provided is clearly not reliable as it is from an information technology magazine, which has no claim to editorial prowess in the field of project management.
Sources: There is only one source provided which refers to this diagram, and not even by the title given in this article.
Independent of the subject: The author of the only provided source is the one for which the eponymous diagram is named and is therefore completely subjective. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam - I've tagged it as such. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy, since it's not blatant advertising for the magazine cited. ~~Beyond that, I believe I've seen this diagram used in recent Agile process books, but I haven't seen it referred to with this name. I'll check for external sources.~~ Tlesher 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find it where I thought I'd seen it. Objection withdrawn. Tlesher 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's spam - not for the magazine, but for Mr. Mayo-Smith and his methods. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn neologism. `'Míkka 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not as spam, but as trivial and non-notable. This sort of thing is properly not speedy-able, because it needs wider attention to see if it might perhaps be important, but I think a prod would have been appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My prod was reverted after precisely six hours by the same IP who edited the article most frequently. --DCrazy talk/contrib 05:25, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no realistic chance this will result in consensus delete.--Isotope23 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noonien Soong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The page is basically a stub. Contains only plot summaries. No third party sources. No verifiable sources. About a minor character of no proven notability. Has no sources besides the Star Trek Wikipedia. The justifications for why he was kept before is "he made data" and other things that could be stated on the pages of the other characters or on a list of minor characters as opposed to needing his own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong[reply]

Keep. A major recurring character from a well-known work of fiction. The article does include more than plot summary, and doesn't really look like a stub to me. Problems with sourcing can be fixed. JulesH 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Last AFD was a unanimous keep, closed early with a suspicion of WP:POINT. I see no reason to believe this one won't progress similarly. JulesH 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Last AFD was not unanimous keep, but included 6 keeps/merges. 6 people did not believe that the character warranted his own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a full page of "Keep"s on the old AfD. People don't generally write and bold "keep" if they don't want an article kept. Orderinchaos 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't say merge if they don't mean a merge. Don't twist the truth when it is available for everyone. NobutoraTakeda 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable character from the Star Trek series, current article is sound basis for expansion, nothing changed since last unaminous keep on AFD. Davewild 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL Article complies with notability guidelines for fiction, and the nominating user has not provided any new justifications for deletion nor as pointed out by Davewild any significant changes to the article since the last AfD. Close as a snowball speedy keep. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noonien_Soong&diff=72360261&oldid=53216517 NobutoraTakeda 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also this is one the examples on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) of an article that should meet guideline. Davewild 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noonien_Soong&diff=72360261&oldid=53216517 NobutoraTakeda 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above, although I suspect that this and a number of other minor recurring characters could probably be merged into a List of minor characters on Star Trek: The Next Generation or the like. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please change your answer to merge. The fact that it wasn't merged even though so many people wanted to last time was that they answered keep and not merge. There were six merge votes. NobutoraTakeda 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is decidedly bad faith to tell an established contributor how to vote. Orderinchaos 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is decidedly bad faith to accuse people of bad faith and of vandalising pages because you want to protect star trek pages. NobutoraTakeda 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I've just looked through his edit summary, and in the last 5,000 edits this is the only one related to Star Trek. That accusation simply doesn't stack up. Oh, and I second his comments that it is incredibly bad faith on your part by telling people how to vote. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise I've probably watched no more than 7 or 8 episodes of the show in my entire life? Orderinchaos 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet both of you were at the Star Trek page and both of you were acting rude on my talk page. Amazing how you come to his defense so readily. I didn't tell someone how to vote. I told them to change the wording on their vote to merge if they believed in a merge. Once again you are accusing me of things falsely just because you want to keep your star trek mention in your fiction page. Need I put up diffs where you were at the star trek page, at the fiction page, and on my talk page and thewinchester talk page where you guys started fights over this with me? NobutoraTakeda 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What fight, where? A change was made to a policy which was reverted because it was unilateral and not discussed at talk, you removed it again, it was reverted. You then start accusing me of everything under the sun, including pouring sugar into your gastank. This is an ad hominem argument by yourself, and is only an attempt to distract attention from the matter at hand, this AfD. Thewinchester ^(talk) 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse others of trying to distract attention when its you trying to distract attention. As the other person at the Fiction edit out your action, it appears that you were in the minority and acted inappropriately, not I. Are you here to legitimately discuss this or are you here to try and be vindictive because I stepped onto your territory? You already made substantial edits to my talk page with condesending edit summaries and tried to spin things around enough. Why are you seeking to disrupt this so badly? NobutoraTakeda 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let people see your edits for what they are, not what you claim them to be, stop making ad hominem arguments in an AfD and get back to the topic. Thewinchester ^(talk) 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is to keep and it will remain that way. Merging is an editorial decision that may be performed independent of an AfD. It is my opinion that currently the best way to handle this is to simply keep the article - interested editors may wish to perform a merge after the fact. Without passing a judgement on whether your comment was in good faith it is presumputous and rude to tell me to alter the substance of my recommendation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. This is a discussion, not a vote. I asked you to change your wording to reflect your comment. Your comment is what matters and your bold text is to reflect what your comment is. NobutoraTakeda 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to be reminded what AfD is or is not - but as you say this is a discussion and not a vote, and in my comment I stated that it could probably be merged. This hardly constitutes an overall "merge" opinion on my part. Besides, if you agree that it's a discussion and not a vote, why should you care what word I choose to bold at all? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I care because it makes it easy to summarize what your point will be as I pointed out above.NobutoraTakeda 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is to keep the article for now with a suggestion for potential merging in the future. Do not attempt to interperet me any other way. Case closed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character in a well-known work of fiction. There are of course not going to be very many real world sources because Noonien Soong does not exist outside our screens and his creator's and actor's imaginations. Orderinchaos 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources don't exist, we merge or delete. Being in the work is not enough to keep it. TTN 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are sources - I found two (they're in the article), and those more familiar with the series than myself would probably have access to dead wood stuff that I don't. Orderinchaos 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have given ~~a wiki (cannot be used as a source) and~~ a completely in-universe biography. You need sources giving real world information or it's pointless. TTN 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Err, the one about the actor doesn't assert anything because most characters have a (voice) actor playing them. TTN 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list. This is about the size of a list entry and it likely cannot become much more. People shouldn't rely on the last AfD for anything. The article doesn't follow WP:FICT or WP:WAF at all (one minor point isn't enough) and nothing has shown that sources can be provided, so those keeps were based on lower standards and WP:ILIKEITs. TTN 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not thrilled about minor characters generally, but he does appear to pass WP:FICT. --Charlene 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of him passes fiction? There are no third party sources available to establish notability. NobutoraTakeda 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the above link "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created." NobutoraTakeda 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote stands and will not be changed. --Charlene 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least clarify your reasoning for it? You said it passes fiction, but I don't see an explanation as to where. You could argue that he is a major character that some have before, or you could say that the list of minor characters is too long and he needs his own page. NobutoraTakeda 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough minor character. --Hemlock Martinis 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice above, the Fiction guidelines clearly state that minor characters should be put in a list of characters and not with their own article unless the entry is too long, which it is not. NobutoraTakeda 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character in a notable universe. Also, possible WP:POINT as this article was brought up and debated the on the nominators first AfD? --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point requires me to break a rule. Nominating an article for deletion that has no substantial third party source is not a point violation. NobutoraTakeda 19:51, 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. Mike Peel 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test please delete[edit]

An online discussion thread, notable only for being very long, with no cited sources at all. I don't think this is notable. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom, unless reliable sources are cited to establish notability. DES ^(talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does however assert significance, so IMO it is not an A7 speedy. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I do not agree that the claim that it is "believed to be the longest thread" is an assertion of notability, because it doesn't say who believes such a thing. Also, as noted, it is not supported by WP:RS. It is, therefore, believed that the subject is WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that an assertion of significance does not need to be supported by sources, reliable or otherwise, to take it out of the domain of WP:CSD#A7. See WT:CSD for discussion of this. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Evb-wiki. A worthless article. --Malcolmxl5 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I doubt Guinness cares either. (and so tagged) Jauerback 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Even if it's true--so what? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 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 as nn joke party. Daniel Case 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neowhig Party[edit]

Delete - Minor internet spoof. Sourced only from its own website, no external coverage. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJaguar3. The "neowhig thesis" is the name of a major theory as to why the American Revolution broke out, so Ghits aren't as useful as they'd usually be, but I'm not seeing anyone discussing this party specifically other than blogs, personal webpages, and the like. --Charlene 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - consider evaluation of individual party entries at List_of_frivolous_political_parties —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 July 2007.

Actually, that is how I noticed this in the first place. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Bearian 00:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke. Non-notable nonsense. Tualha (Talk) 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 10:05, 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 redirect to Hawkwind. Daniel Case 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Wind[edit]

Sources are missing. High on a tree 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawkwind (a band). The article at Hawk Wind isn't just unverified, it's unverifiable nonsense. It's a plausible misspelling of Hawkwind, though. Propaniac 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Propaniac. Watch out for Buzzhornet Winds! (WTF?) Guroadrunner 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per others. This vandal did us a favor, it seems, by pointing out a useful redirect. The article itself is borderline WP:CSD#G1. --Jaysweet 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - WP:ITSFUNNY~~ At least the comprehensible parts were.... Just kidding, Redirect per Propaniac. -- MarcoTolo 02:51, 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 as hoax or extremely nn per attempts to verify. Daniel Case 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cenetic Energy[edit]

dosn't appear to be real and/or notable. The supposed inventor, Neil Turok is named in the first edits, but a google on him and Cenetic Energy give no hits. Cenetic Energy alone give hardly no non-wikipedia hits. The first editor got a remark on his/her talk page for posting nonsense.(User talk:Shakna) I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to get more scientific assessments

Delete — "energy that passes through atoms at a speed faster than the atom revolves", sounds like complete bollocks to me. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Total nonsense. - superβεεcat 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references to this on science websites, or indeed anywhere else. Totnesmartin 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like BS to me. As a check, I did a full-text search on the ArXiv pre-print server(where Turok and other physicists upload all their papers) and it found no instance of the word "cenetic". Other dead giveways that this is bunk include the random and unmotivated remarks on string/M-theory, the complete lack of references, and (relatedly) the unsubstantiated claim that "Cenetic Energy is no longer theory, over forty-two experiments have proven it right, except that it cannot explain why the neutron sometimes has a slight charge." -Joshua Davis 21:21, 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 jazz (there is not a separate modern jazz article). Daniel Case 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo jazz[edit]

This page was mistakenly listed at MfD. I'm relisting at AfD, as proper. The nominator's original comment was "It is a stub that does little to cover a little known or obscure genre, and has many tags for cleanup. Considering the importance of the page, it would be easier to have it deleted Snail Doom 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I second the sentiment that the page should be deleted, if only for failing WP:V, as it lacks sources. Xoloz 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought 'neo jazz' was simply another name for 'modern jazz'. --Malcolmxl5 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a verified genre. Propaniac 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Modern Jazz. This definition [10] calls it a synonym of modern jazz. Nice! Totnesmartin 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to jazz. Preserve any usable content about specific artists to subsections of Jazz that discuss fusion and electronica. Wl219 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to jazz. The article provides little context and is likely a neologism. Ali ^(t)_(c) 02:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to jazz. From what I can gather, neo jazz is still a fairly small genre and the article makes no attempt to establish the notability of the genre as required by notability policy. However, it may be worth adding a sentence or two about neo jazz into the main jazz article, but unless any substantial verifiable references for the genre can be found, neo jazz will never meet notability policy (note: this article should not be redirected to modern jazz because that is already a redirect to jazz). --tgheretford (talk) 15:49, 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 both. Sr 13 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosiah Ruiz[edit]

No sources, no Google hits. The claims to notability, apart from being unsubstantiated, are borderline anyway (signed to major label but with no album published yet, some namedropping). Has been speedily deleted twice on July 13 [11]. High on a tree 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (her yet-to-be-released or verified debut album):

But, she's best known for her brief relationship with Bow Wow, you guys--yeah, delete. Non-notable, WP:MUSIC, all that good stuff.--Ispy1981 16:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stuck a speedy tag on the page--this article has already been deleted before. Precious Roy 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Could probably even be a Speedy delete since merely being friends with notable people isn't in itself a claim to notability. Note: A quick search through Google, Google News, and Google News Archives finds not a single match for anyone by this name. You'd think anyone who dates famous rappers would at least get a mention or two somewhere. Very odd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't released any albums so fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Useight 18:34, 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 as failing WP:V. Daniel Case 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irishtarot[edit]

Unencyclopaedic vanity page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmc (talk • contribs)

Keep - Needs sources for verification and trimming, but it's seems perfectly notable. DarkSaber2k 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I extracted as much of the weasel wording and peacock phrases I could. I'll look for some reliable sources later on. DarkSaber2k 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changing to a delete because I can't find any reliable sources for verification. DarkSaber2k 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite of DarkSaber2k's honorable efforts, the article is still full of fuzzy marketing talk like
- "The response was so good ...."
- "... this was also well received in the United States where the Podcast reached 100% popularity in its Self Help category" (what is the ""Self Help category" of the United States of America?).
- "...the show was a hit and grew rapidly since."

As several other editors have remarked before, this looks like a case of blatant abuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. And even if someone would do a complete rewrite citing reliable sources, replacing the marketing language with basic facts about the company (how many employees does it have, numbers on revenue and profits, etc.), the question of notability would still remain. Regards, High on a tree 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it reads like a promotional piece that falls to provide notability. NobutoraTakeda 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too much like advertising, even after cleanup. I get no Google News hits (archives included), and an Alexa rank of 1.6 million or so doesn't speak well for notability of something primarily internet-based. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. Even with significant cleanup I can't see how this company would be able to meet WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 01:02, 22 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 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Square Auditorium[edit]

Article on an up-and-coming music venue. No evidence of notability, unsourced. I had tagged it for an A7 speedy, but it was removed without explanation by an anon IP whose edits indicate that it might be the original author. --Finngall ^talk 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's content boils down to "This is a venue for music events," plus backstory about a separate establishment with the same owner. Propaniac 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Jauerback 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#MYSPACE. -- MarcoTolo 01:04, 22 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 and redirect. Sr 13 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01189 problem[edit]

I'm absolutely certain this isn't notable as far as Wikipedia's concerned, and in any case the article is currently written like a magazine entry rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this. My article is similar to Scunthorpe Problem and that has not been deleted. Biscuittin 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — you'll notice, however, that the article you mention discusses the matter in a wider context, rather than providing solely a parochial (IMHO) view. I think the merge proposed below is a good idea. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable. In regards to Biscuittin's comment, please avoid using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as each article should be judged on it's own merit. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have included a reference to a reliable source which is independent of the subject. Biscuittin 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability calls for mention in multiple non-trivial sources. This article does not satisfy that requirement. Trusilver 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 1 article in 1 paper definitely does not satisfy "significant coverage" --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The article in unencyclopedic and covers a very minor issue that affects a very small area. Sourcing out the article has only revealed trivial, local references. Trusilver 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also agree that merging to an appropriate article would be an acceptable solution. Trusilver 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make no further comment. Let's see what other people think. Biscuittin 16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local kerfluffle that the article admits even most of the people affected don't care about. This might warrant an explanatory paragraph in the local telephone directory, or a leaflet packed in with locals' phone bills, but not an article in a worldwide general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry, but NN as per above. Also, the article relates to a very localized audience. —Travis ^talk 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merged article will do —Travis ^talk 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and to cap it all off, original research. The problem is not unique to Reading, by the way. It is, if anything, even worse here in Coventry, where the numbers were changed from 01203 xxxxxx to 024 76xx xxxx, meaning Coventry numbers are a digit longer than the longest most people are used to thinking about... JulesH 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a small, highly local problem that even most locals don't know or care about. I see no notability. --Charlene 16:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, no notability has been established. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, this article addresses a topic not covered in wikipedia yet, namely padding phone numbers when transitioning to longer ones. (Is there a technical term for this?) This had happened in many countries, and may well be documented. I remember similar confusions in my native country. So while is it stands, the article is nonnotable, but may be part of a more general article, if one exists or someone is willing to start. `'Míkka 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 0207 and 0208: The 01189 problem is a local variant of the very much larger problem in London. That article already has a section "Similar errors with other area codes" where 01189 problem could go. Nunquam Dormio 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 0207 and 0208 article also includes information on Cardiff, Coventry and Reading. I agree that a merger would be sensible and I suggest that the merged article be re-named "Erroneous British telephone codes". Biscuittin 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this I would agree with. Create a new article, merge the whole shebang. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - remember WP:LOCAL and systemic bias. Just because it's an issue local to Reading doesn't mean it's not notable. Wl219 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless something can be shown to say that it is a notable problem. Note to user:Biscuittin, to say that something else exists is not really a valid argument to keep an article (see WP:WAX), and aside from that, this has to do with dialing a particular set of telephone numbers - while the one you reference has more to do with a bug in spam filters. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to something. As a standalone problem in Reading, it's probably NN, but it would make a good section in an article about telephone-number-length changes. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, If someone wants to merge it somewhere go ahead...otherwise it need to goes.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reading, Berkshire. It's a local problem; it may warrant mention in the local article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Join the consensus to merge to Erroneous UK telephone codes. The redirect may be helpful, and is a detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger I propose to re-name 0207 and 0208 as "Erroneous British telephone codes" and merge my article 01189 problem into it. Please discuss. Biscuittin 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion about other possible mergers at Talk:0207 and 0208. Biscuittin 08:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction might be a better word, but I say do it and be done with it.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Single reference to short article in local newspaper does not establish notability. Gandalf61 10:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have re-named 0207 and 0208 as Erroneous UK telephone codes and moved some text from my 01189 problem article to it. I now intend to convert 01189 problem to a redirect page. I'm sure this won't please everybody but I think it's a reasonable compromise. Biscuittin 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, I've edited this to being a comment. By putting two merger tags on, it looks like you're trying to pad. Not sayin' you are, just looks that way. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Mailer Diablo, and I approve of this merger. Argyriou (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-If no one objects I think this thing should be closed soon.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Erroneous UK telephone codes - I'm from Reading, and it's a problem that seriously bugs me. However, I don't think it warrents it's own article - it should be merged with Erroneous UK telephone codes. _TheIslander 18:51, 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 of the speedy variety, given the withdrawal. Daniel 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hills End[edit]

Fails WP:N, since no secondary coverage is given. Tagged with notability concerns since Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "yes, it is an unsourced stub, but it being broadcast on ABC is enough of an assertion of notability to me". One might debate whether that point is an assertion of notability; however, it certainly does not establish notability. Simply being broadcast on a certain station cannot be a reason for inclusion: Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and notability is not inherited. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ The article says it's a TV series, but also that it was only broadcast on one date. The IMDB link says it's a miniseries. I'm guessing it's a made-for-TV movie. On that assumption, given that there appears to be nothing notable about it, I'm voting to delete, but I might lean towards keeping it if it was actually a series or possibly even a miniseries that aired over several nights. I'm not too bothered by deleting an article that can't even make that clear, though. Propaniac 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that article has been improved. Propaniac 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Notability not established. --Malcolmxl5 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep now that article has been improved. --Malcolmxl5 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. This is a telemovie based on a 1962 book by Ivan Southall which according to the National Library of Australia "received immediate critical recognition both in Australia and overseas". [12]. The article should be rewritten to be about the book as well as the television movie. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is certainly notable, needs verifiable sources added, not deletion Recurring dreams 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-write, the book is more notable and the film should be a section of a single article about both.Ga rr ie 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article, shoot nominator. Southall is a really notable author from my childhood, and the notability should have been established if the nominator had done their research. Moreover, the fact that it was filmed as a miniseries should make it damned obvious. Articles for deletion is not a step in the cleanup process. Reading the reasons, did the nominator even realise this is a book we're talking about? Rebecca 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stay civil, and please read the version of the article I was nominating. It was clearly about a TV series, not about a book; and no independent sources had been given since Oct 06, when notability concerns had been raised. (IMDB alone does not establish notability.) Note that it is the editor's responsibility to provide sources; cf. WP:V. The notability tag clearly states that articles may be deleted if no third-party sources are provided, so you shouldn't be too surprised. --B. Wolterding 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This does not mean that you do not have a duty to do your research before nominating articles for deletion. An article should not be nominated because it is unsourced - it should only be nominated if you believe it is unsourcable, something which you could not have known since you apparently did not bother to check yourself. Rebecca 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Since the article has been changed considerably in the meantime, and sources have been provided, I withdraw the nomination. --B. Wolterding 09:23, 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 by User:Carlossuarez46, A7. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Saidman[edit]

Page created 26 March 2007 as a single sentence. Tagged for Speedy delete same day but tag removed next day after creator said he was going to interview the subject and write more (original research). Tagged for notability ever since, and the promised additions have not materialised. STill a one-sentence article, plus a mass of grafitti. Emeraude 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't even seem to be a town of Caspia, North Dakota. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1, very short articles providing little or no context. —David Eppstein 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the creator of the article can add more information, it should take that long. The page can be created if notable enough. FirefoxRocks 15:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattributed biography without assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to really comment on, this article should have been a speedy under A1. Trusilver 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN - Google can't find the town, or even suggest an alternative spelling. —Travis ^talk 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Carlosguitar. SLSB 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Caspia doesn't show up on the National Atlas of the US either. The only Ghits for Michael Saidman are for a restaurateur in Philadelphia. --Charlene 16:43, 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. Sources not provided to establish notability independent of subject's website; can be recreated if such sources are provided at that time. Daniel Case 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lobell[edit]

PROD was removed, which brings us here. Fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. --Eyrian 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.--Ispy1981 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. --Ybbor ^Talk 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am awaiting cites. Bearian 01:41, 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 rename to Non-English versions of The Simpsons. Sr 13 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons[edit]

I don't think this article should stay on the English Wikipedia. The article is the similar case of already-deleted List of Smallville Korea voice actors. JSH-alive 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If the voice actors are notable then they should have their own articles with a link to The Simpsons. This isn't needed. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Foreign language versions of The Simpsons or something like that. The article isn't just a list of actors (which I would vote to delete); it has a lot of content about character renaming and such that is worth keeping, in my opinion. Propaniac 17:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename per Propaniac; this is more than a cast list, it's more of a foreign language versions article. I have little doubt that sufficient WP:RSes can be found to establish the notability of The Simpsons' foreign language versions, so meets WP:N. A quick check of French and Spanish Wikipedia articles shows that most of the voice actors are blue linked (i.e., notable). Note: this article also exists in Portuguese and Gallego. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. reasonable topic, big, referenced article. `'Míkka 18:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essential topic to ensure a worldwide view, the rename sounds good. More out-of-universe than most Simpsons articles. We need more articles like this one.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename ~~per Propaniac's suggestion~~ per Liftarn's modification (below) of Propaniac's suggestion, since this article is not only about the actors. Nicko's contention that "If the voice actors are not notable then they should have their own articles" flies in the face of WP:N which states, Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. It's not required that each fact stated within an article be independently notable, so long as the overall article topic is notable. This is a notable topic which also serves Wikipedia's commitment to address notable issues affecting places other than in the English-speaking world. --Yksin 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Propaniac. --Chicaneo 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like Non-English versions of The Simsons ("Foreign" is a word to avoid). Note: The article isn't just a list of the voice actors, but also the cultural changes made. Like that in the Canadian version Apu is Arabic. // Liftarn
- Comment. I've modified my "vote" to rename it in accords with Liftarn's suggestion: agreed that it should be "non-English" rather than "foreign." --Yksin 16:10, 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 RESULT. Delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, being "much-loved" is not an assertion of notability or most grandmothers would be "notable". Carlossuarez46 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew de gouveia[edit]

Completely non-notable, article doesn't state why the person is being included, links link to facebook, and google comes up with nothing on his name being searched dr.alf 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The name can't be found on any search engine. It appears to me to be a vanity article. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - looks like a vanity article with no notability. Guroadrunner 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure about speedy, as "much-loved Hobart celebrity" is probably an assertion of notability (whether or not it's true), but he is utterly non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not speedy, as it does assert notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague unsupported assertion of notability to say the least. Possibly a prank.--Ispy1981 16:10, 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 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Balfe[edit]

Non-professional footballer. Mattythewhite 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding Ben Watson (football player) to this AfD, unless it is felt that playing for England at futsal confers notability..... ChrisTheDude 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - semi-pro soccer player, so he's not entirely non-professional. We have articles on ARCA racecar drivers, which I would assume is a similar league NASCAR-wise to the sport of soccer. Guroadrunner 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO explicitly states that an athlete must have competed in a fully professional league, something neither Balfe nor Watson has done ChrisTheDude 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, no offence, but having read the article on ARCA I can't see any meaningful similarity with English football ChrisTheDude 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I figure a semi-pro soccer league is a lot like a semi-pro racing series. In NASCAR (and F1), the series ladder basically goes:

- NASCAR Nextel Cup // F1 <---- this is what a top-level soccer league sounds like.

- NASCAR Busch Series // GP2 <---- this is what the MLS sounds like.

- ARCA or ASA // F3 series <---- this is what a semi-pro soccer league sounds like.

- - - Not to fork the conversation, just how I figure this fits in. 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs)
      - Fair enough, I can see what you're driving at (no pun intended, well, maybe just a bit....), but as stated above per WP:BIO an athlete must have competed in a fully professional league. If articles on semi-professional racing drivers exist then either a) they shouldn't based on that guideline or b) it's been decided that race car drivers aren't considered to be "athletes"..... ChrisTheDude 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played a game in a fully professional league. Would also support deletion of Ben Watson - the Futsal team merits only an article for itself rather than its (non-notable) players. Number 5 7 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not played in a fully-professional league and there are no reasons to make him an exception. The Watson article should be the subject of a separate AfD, I think, and I would support moving the text to Futsal in England, reworded appropriately. --Malcolmxl5 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete footballer who fails notability as per norm. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:03, 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 as hoax with thanks to User:Trusilver for his work. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke Goldblum[edit]

I first looked at this article a little over a month ago. It seemed to me then that the article had been created, in April, as a campaigning piece against injustice, which of course isn't what encyclopedias are for. No work had been done to turn it into an article, and the only source cited was a website called "Free Zeke".

I proposed its deletion in mid-June but the tag was removed by the creator of the article, with a comment on the talk page. I put a "moresources" tag on it and left it there for the time being.

It's now a month later and only two further edits have been made, both of them by bots altering the categories.

It's time to reassess, possibly cleanup, or possibly delete, this item. As it stands at present I wouldn't call it an encyclopedia article. Rather it's a brief advocacy essay. It remains an orphan article. --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just spent twenty minutes on this. The only other reference on Google is the associated website. It's created via a template, and the e-mail address of the author is burried in it - I was hoping to see if it matched the original wikipedia editors user name in some way, but can't see a link. Google on other aspects of the name (without Zeke etc.) returns nothing about this guy. I'm just very concerned that this is a WP:BLP that can't be cited at all. I assumme that it's not a hoax but the assertations in the article (and website) make me wonder why there's nothing else at all on the net. Fos something so serious there should be a passing reference somewhere. Imm no deletionist but this would seem better of gone until it can be proved this guy exists. Pedro | Chat 13:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to call this a hoax at this point. I have researched both the article and the website about as extensively as I have the resources for. First, there is absolutely no legitimate source that claims that this murder ever happened. There is no evidence that a Charles "Zeke" Goldblum (or any arrangement or spelling variation thereof) ever murdered George Wilhelm. There is not and never has been a Pennsylvania prosecutor named F. Peter Dixon as the site claims was the prosecutor in the case. Judge Donald Zielger (I also checked Donald Ziegler) does not exist. The three pathologists do exist, but I have not found any connection between them and the alleged case. Trusilver 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I think we have enough to slam dunk this as a hoax. I went one step further so I wouldn't have any doubt. I got on the phone with a very helpful librarian in the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh who pulled the 1976 microtapes of the Post-Gazette. On Feb. 10-12, there was no mention of the murder in the local news. There was also no obituary for Wilhelm anywhere between Feb. 11-18. I think this is pretty well wrapped up. Trusilver 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with kudos to Trusilver for going the extra mile. Propaniac 17:11, 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} 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge-type character[edit]

Title itself appears to be original research, as is the list of examples. Term "unofficially adopted" by whom? Discounting Wikipedia mirrors, I've found one instance of the phrase being used, but I don't think that's enough to sustain an article. --EEMeltonIV 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's an unofficial term of limited notability, then it shouldn't be here. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uncited OR. --Eyrian 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I suspect the term hadn't actually been adopted by anyone when the article was created, but I do see some evidence of its usage since then. Not enough to keep the article. However the concept behind the article -- the archetype of a minor character who somehow, against all probability, manages to survive through situations where many of his comrades don't -- is an important one to much literature, and I think a discussion of it should exist here. But I don't know of any sources for that discussion, and this page isn't the right page for it, I don't think. I'll see what I can come up with. JulesH 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the more broadly used term is "character shield" -- unfortunately, Wikipedia's entry for that term is in a similarly sorry state. --EEMeltonIV 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A character shield is slightly different: this is an explanation of why major characters are more likely to survive. What this article is talking about is a minor character who survives, despite not benefiting from a character shield. Such a character is useful to deflect attention away from the character shields your major characters have. JulesH 17:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple case of OR here, really. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The idea may be notable, but this article isn't the right place for it. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about this one. On one hand, it's similar to Redshirt (character), but I'd say it's notability is a small fraction of that of the latter. —Travis ^talk 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - merge into stock character if you must. List of examples can be trimmed. Wl219 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure what it's called, or whether anyone has written a serious article about it that we could use as a reference, but the phenomenon is well known and often satirized - see my favorite example. Perhaps for now we could merge this to Character shield? I've asked the folks at WikiProject Fictional series if they can help clarify this. Tualha (Talk) 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that I don't get the concept of a minor character who becomes notable because of fan identification, but doing a google search suggests that the author made up the term. Interestingly, "wedge character" is apparently a scientific term used to describe a feature of polymer chemistry and it's also used to describe the ^ symbol (shift and 6 over some keyboards). In one context, its used as a shorthand for pressing CTRL and the key you want (from one site: "The wedge character '^' means pressing the control key. Hence, to "^G: Get Help", we press the control key together with the alphabet letter G". Ironically, "wedge character" might need a disambiguation page that, for the reasons listed above, WOULDN'T include a reference to Wedge Biggins whoever the Wedge-based character is named for by the author. Mandsford 00:15, 22 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 previously deleted and not currently notable. Daniel Case 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Wrestling Federation[edit]

Non notable federation with only 307 Ghits [13], and was previously deleted on 14th February 2007 [14] and tagged with a CSD G4 on 23rd February 2007 [15], the result of which caused the adding of a "media exposure" section [16], but none of the statements within that section have references, and none have been added in the last five months.

All the links through out the article to wrestlers are just youtube videos embedded on the Fed's homepage, and the Shawn Michaels link leads directly to a youtube link [17], which has been posted by the main editor [18].

While I do not doubt that this federation exists, it is nothing more than a non notable backyard fed which happens to have attracted some Christian wrestlers to make cameos. The article namedrops HBK and AJ, plus mentions notable TV shows, to imply notability, but notability is not inherited. And the most prolific editor, and article recreator [19] has already argued other stuff exists on the talkpage [20].

If there is third party mainstream coverage I haven't been able to find it. Initially I had PROD-ed the article but give the past I feel this needs to be put to bed.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Darrenhusted 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking Verifiability big time here, non-notable MPJ-DK 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may not be notable but the title made me laugh! Perhaps a mention on Deleted articles with freaky titles? Totnesmartin 20:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Attempts to gain notability through the addition of AJ & SM are not considered notability, as notability is not inherited. Other than that, no notability. --SteelersFan UK06 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 01:44, 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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott white[edit]

Non-notable. Hu 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) It is worth observing that the article creator removed the speedy delete tag. Then after he was informed that this was not permitted, an anonymous IP address removed the tag. Would an Admin be able to confirm or deny if the same IP address as the article's creator was used to evade the restriction? Hu 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - you need ~~WP:CHU~~ WP:RCU for that. As for this article - surely speedy delete as non notable bio cat A7 ? Pedro | Chat 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:RCU. CHU is for changing your username. --Charlene 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes dead right - sorry - so may flipping acronyms round here!! Pedro | Chat 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think it fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Guroadrunner 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete can't see any assertion of notability. Fails notability criteria as well, all I can find is his half-finished website. Hut 8.5 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:BIO, cut n paste job. Eliz81 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:N and seems to fail CSD A7. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- fails WP:BIO ChrisLamb 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- It is completely un-notable and seems to be copied and pasted from another source. FirefoxRocks 16:25, 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 speedied. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westside J[edit]

Non-notable; prod was contested. Sala Skan 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's a "mega-production rap label"? Guroadrunner 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I sometimes hate PROD. Jauerback 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete with comment Doesn't assert notability. Apparently a "mega-production rap label" in this case means "a label for me and my friends". One "source" (YouTube) has a video, the description of which reads "Westside J, in association with Evening Magic Productions". Evening Magic is on Westside J's "roster".--Ispy1981 16:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me, I would have tagged the article for speedy deletion immediately, but someone decided to prod it. You're right, though, that speedying is still possible, so I tagged it. Sala Skan 16:45, 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} 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Moses Jr[edit]

Bio does not satisfy WP:N Gilliam 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. JulesH 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm quite aware that I may have a COI because I create the article but I was viewing this page which is a reference linked to by this article, I'm aware of WP:ILIKEIT but it is referenced and its not a memorial. Rlest 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: to nominator: WP:NN states an article is notable if it has been the subject of reliable third party sources, if you look at the references it clearly meets these standards. Rlest 12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are to obituary listings. Wikipedia is not a memorial and should not have articles on everyone whose death is covered by 2 outlets Corpx 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that it requires substantial coverage. --Eyrian 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources look good, notability ascertained. All good. Pedro | Chat 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Brief investigation finds some links but not much. Add more information can be found on his role with the blue ribbon committee as mentioned and my vote would be stronger. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources look good and he seems notable enough. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete having a mention in a newspaper because you have died does not make you notable. NobutoraTakeda 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)This user has been banned. [21][reply]
- This user joined Wikipedia two days ago and has made several AfD contributions within very short spaces of time, indicating that they are not actualy reading the article, plus the article does not mention that he appeared in a newspaper. Rlest 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the user's argument, not the user. You're speculating way too much about what the user does or does not do. Corpx 17:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2001/spring/memoriam_main.html That looks like the same as anything I've ever found in a news paper section for death notices. NobutoraTakeda 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What exactly is this guy's claim for notability? Find articles says that he was "assigned commander of the U.S. naval base in Southhampton, England, during the invasion of Normandy.". Wiki article says "he was given the position of Commander of the US throughout the Invasion of Normandy." - I dont think being the commander of a naval base during WW is sufficient to be notable Corpx 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He is notable. Callelinea 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For? Battle of Normandy doesn't even mention this person Corpx 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just some lawyer with the kind of credentials you'd expect for having lived that long. Gordonofcartoon 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - would keep if his work with charities/bankruptcies can be expanded and sourced. Seems to be his most important professional contributions as a lawyer. Wl219 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obituaries do not satisfy the requirement for substantial coverage. --Eyrian 22:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article says "he was given the position of Commander of the US throughout the Invasion of Normandy" which would have made him the superior not only of General Dwight D. Eisenhower but the superior of President Franklin D. Roosevelt as well, the article lacks references to show it is more than a memorial article for a man who served his country in war, had a successful business career, and did good things for churches. The world could use a few billion more people like him, but nothing shows he satisfies WP:BIO. To have an article, he should have had substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable publications, which is not satisfied by a couple of obituaries. The article is a memorial, and per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a memorial." Edison 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment From the references used for that part of the article (the obit in the Chicago Sun-Times), he was commander of the US navy base at Southampton during the invasion, which is more likely. But in that case he would have been a high ranking officer and there should be sources. He had a probably more notable father, and also son, the III. which doesn't help in finding materials. BTW, the obit seems to be a real obit, not a family announcement, and such obits in reputable papers are very much RSs. There was also a obit in the Chicago Tribune. So far I just have the headline "Hamilton Moses Jr., Member of Panel That Crafted Bankruptcy Code, Passes Away" Pre web, which of course makes things difficult. He may be important, and this may be sourceable.

Can someone help me with this on on Lexis? DGG (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I've read the article three times, without spotting a real claim to notability. Because that's the only thing that makes sense to me, I've assumed the word "a" is missing in the sentence describing him as "Commander" of the US. If I'm wrong, explanation is needed in the article and I amend my opinion to Speedy Keep. I'll ask our local library-hanger if she can find any more about this. --Dweller 18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As stated above the notability guideline states that an article is notable if it has been the subject of reliable third part sources, which it has. Rlest 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, do obituaries count? Does that mean that everyone who has had an obituary is notable and deserves an entry? --Eyrian 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obits vary. people having staff-written obits in major metropolitan papers are generally notable, and the obits in such papers are RSs. Whether these two obits count is unclear, but they are not the family-written puff pieces used unjustifiably in many local history articles. DGG (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. He's clearly notable. Watch the amends I'm about to make. --Dweller 07:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be a red flag if the only source about a person is the person's obituary, which are known to embellish accomplishments to portray the deceased in a more positive light.

"Mr. Moses helped revise bankruptcy laws as part of the Blue Ribbon Panel." - How exactly did he help revise the laws?

"He was "assigned commander of the U.S. naval base in Southhampton, England, during the invasion of Normandy." - That's great, but I dont think being commander of a base by itself is notable unless he was involved in a major battle or did something else notable. Corpx 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re obituaries - that may be your opinion, but both sources fulfil our requirements for WP:RS and the guideline makes no exceptions for obituaries. Re bankruptcy rules - you're arguing that the article is weak. Undeniable. Not an argument for deletion. Re base commander, I agree. --Dweller 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing else that talks about his contributions to the bankruptcy laws, which leads me to believe that his contributions were minuscule, and thus not notable Corpx 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that argument is your opinion and is OR. --Dweller 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, that is a matter of burden of proof. Unless his contributions are shown to be significant, it is assumed they are not. --Eyrian 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per amendments made by Dweller and the DYK possibilities this subject possesses. Burntsauce 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Mr. Moses helped revise bankruptcy laws as part of the Blue Ribbon Panel" - what precisely does this mean? There is no "the Blue Ribbon Panel". A Blue Ribbon Panel is a generic for a form of expert lay committee that could be convened at any level: federal, state, city, local library... Gordonofcartoon 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See the second paragraph, the laws were obviously seen as controvrsial. Rlest 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but nobody knows the extent of his contributions. All we know is that he served on a committee of experts and that's it. He was not even a legislator Corpx 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls woefully short of notability criteria. Served in WWII without particular distinction (like millions of others), was a lawyer (like millions of others), gave money to charity (like millions of others)... well, you get the point. Yes, he served on a (not "the") Blue Ribbon Panel, but it's not like this was the Warren Commission -- it dealt with bankruptcy law reform, not exactly a notable topic either unless his contributions to the endeavour were of particular significance (and the article makes no claim they were). Without prejudice to the hallowed memory of the late Mr. Moses, let's spike this one based on WP:BIO and WP:N. Biruitorul 04:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he was in charge of a military base, there would be some sort of military record of such command posting. I have been completely unable to find one in any of the relevant historical databases, and any hits on a .mil site. His position of bankrupcy law authority seems to also have exceedingly weak sourcing, as such I would push that he does fail WP:BIO and notability standards. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:46, 22 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} 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur T. Murray[edit]

Net.kook of questionable notability. His articles (Arthur T. Murray, Mentifex, AI4U, and Mind-1.1) have been deleted before, though this was in 2003 or 2004, and the deletion logs go back only to December 2004.

Last I checked, there are no independent published sources about Murray himself. There is one independent published source on his computer program, but it was an informal review by a medical doctor (not a computer scientist) in a non–peer-reviewed SIGPLAN newsletter. I think Murray might have won the alt.usenet.kooks Kook of the Year Award, but I'm not sure if that can be counted as a reliable source. —Psychonaut 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If I understand correctly, the main reason the prior articles were deleted was because Mentifex himself kept on vandalizing them, and it wasn't worth the effort to keep them clean despite their noteworthiness. In fact, I think I may have had this exact discussion with Psychonaut several years ago. I'd argue that Murray/Mentifex is quite noteworthy, with 18,800 google hits for "Mentifex." He's also potentially the longest-lasting kook, as he's been around since at least 1985. He's at least about as noteworthy as Gene Ray. --NeuronExMachina 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete per Biographies of Living Persons- (sorry I'm not good at linking to those pages.) This article calls him a 'crank' -not a Neutral Point of View really and not enough sources to make an NPOV article either. Seems mean to have an article which contains nothing but slagging off a private individual (I'd not heard of him before by the way.)Merkinsmum 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any third parties off Usenet discussing him, and the WP:BLP problem is troublesome (but fixable - but is it worth it?). --Charlene 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, his main claim to fame seems to be annoying other people with repeated off-topic newsgroup posts of highly dubious scientific validity. If that's not permitted under WP:BLP, then the article will contain little or nothing at all of note about the man. —Psychonaut 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is how he or what supporters he may have would explain what he is doing, nor are they likely to call him a 'crank' and without consideration of other views of his actions than 'annoying' it's not NPOV so should be included without NPOVing or also including his own view of his actions. A lot of borderline noteable BLP issues consisting or frequent or primarily criticism are being deleted at the mo, such as the article on Seth Finkelstein. I think this current trend is a kind of censorship, but none the less it's the precedent at the mo.Merkinsmum 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the "official site" is nothing but an user account on an ISP. Google hits is not reason for keep (numerous non-notable but frequent Usenet contributors who often participate in Usenet flame-wars show up highly in Google hits as a result). I don't think frequent Usenet participation constitutes a claim to fame. Tendancer 00:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I give up. I maintain that Mentifex is pretty legendary in the artificial intelligence online community for more than 20 years now, but I admit that he's somewhat of an unknown outside that community. It looks like this will probably be deleted, and I won't attempt to recreate it. However, if in the future somebody else sees this and thinks they can do a better job than me of justifying the article, I heartily encourage them to do so -- Mentifex is a noteworthy piece of Internet history. --NeuronExMachina 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog and Archimedes Plutonium are net.kooks who have become noteworthy pieces of Internet history. While he's almost as vocal, Mentifex hasn't yet been covered in enough published sources to earn this rather dubious accolade. Don't take it personally, NeuronExMachina. :) —Psychonaut 21:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I actually wasn't aware of the Notable Usenet personalities page which Archimedes Plutonium redirects to. I actually think that might be a good place to have the Mentifex/Murray articles redirect to. Do you think Mentifex might be notable enough to put on that page? --NeuronExMachina 22:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moot The Mentifex home page is now a mock-up Wikipedia article. -ATM/Mentifex

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold dust robbery[edit]

Questionable-notability incident (no google hits) in a poorly written article Guroadrunner 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to serious lack of notability, if the person was still alive it would have serious BLP violations in it. Rlest 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Were this article sourced to reliable non-trivial secondary sources (I assume they'd be independent, since after all the guy died over 150 years ago), I'd change my vote, but the combination of the lack of secondary sources and the unencyclopedic tone makes me wonder if this is notable. The Newgate Calendar is a primary source, which means that although it would be useful as a verification tool, it can't be used to support notability. --Charlene 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References: here, here, here, and here. If this topic merits a Wikipedia entry, it is still in an unacceptable form in its current state. It's harder to find references for events in the 1800s than the 2000s, so I'm not sure this fails notability requirements. Eliz81 15:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 15:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per the above. This also reads suspiciously like a copyright violation but I can't find anything it's been lifted directly from. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very weakly, probably with a move to something like Falmouth gold dust theft (1839). The article seems to contain in-text references to sources whose reliability at this remove is hard to dispute. Likewise, the fact that someone bothered to create this article more than 150 years after the incident argues strongly, if circumstantially, that it has some degree of notability; it's still of interest to at least one person. The text as given certainly needs a great deal of editing, but these are not deletion problems. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and move to Falmouth gold dust theft (1839). The Rootsweb cites need improvement, since they do not say the exact paper being quoted. But several reliable and independent references are presented to show that this crime did occur, that the perpetrators were real people, and that it received notice. The article does sound like a copyvio, but no one has pointed to the source, so that is not a legitimate reason for deletion. If it were pointed to a verbatim source, the basic facts could still be included, and it is likely to be a public domain 19th century source. Notability is not temporary, so a recent major crime has no more reason to have an article than this one. The editing proces now has several sources to work from, and the article can be Wikified and the form of the references improved. ~One improvement would be to state the approximate weight of gold dust, not just its 1839 value in pounds sterling. Edison
Weak keep for now, withdrawing my !vote from before. The links above demonstrate that reliable sourcing may exist and I am willing to allow it to be kept for now so that interested editors might have a chance to fix the article. But if it's not been improved in a reasonable amount of time then another discussion may be warranted here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's in The Times (29 Jun 1839 page 6). Article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. Have added a ref to the source, and wikified first line of article. PamD 22:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have tidied article a little more, and made link from Falmouth, Cornwall PamD 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the ref. They called it "extraordinary robbery to which these persons were parties involved circumstances probably more singular than any other which ever came before a court of justice". That the Times used the Newgate Calendar as a ref. in this case validates it. DGG (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with move to Falmouth gold dust theft (1839) -- GURoadrunner (original nominator)
Keep and move to Falmouth gold dust theft (1839), article does need editing but that is no reason to delete. BLP is irrelevant to dead people. DuncanHill 10:24, 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 as COI, not likely notable and unverifiable. If recreated after this, salt. Daniel Case 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Irresistible[edit]

No sources, which is strange given his claimed accomplishments ("June 22, 2002 wins International Heavy-weight championship.") Google turns up empty. Probably hoax, but as such unfortunately not speedyable. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Definitely not hoax. Check out this newspaper archive entry, Saddle Brook Superstar. Google for "International Wrestling Superstars". But everything will need checking, and is he notable? I think we can assume that coming from a single-edit account called iwsprowrestling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it's a COI post. Gordonofcartoon 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that in the light of the Saddle Brook newspaper, he's not a hoax. Still, major parts of the article remain unverifiable, and his notability is dubious despite the grandiose claims. Huon 11:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
extreme delete user has vandalized the Chris Chavis, Road Warrior Animal and Road Warriors by inserting his riduculous claims. He may exist but his claims of achievement are phoney. Get rid of it quickly please MPJ-DK 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see what you mean: 68.197.253.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). One for WP:ANI and/or WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For what it's worth, at least there is an invention called Spiderball (no mention of him, though) and he really is the founder of King Wings. Not that it really matters, since it fails WP:BIO, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:just about everything else. Eliz81 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeeeah. Looks like, even if he has done all of that stuff, it's been in small indie feds that have no notability for themselves - and it's rather lacking in verifiability. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax. The information about Chris Chavis and Road Warrior Animal are true. No one vandalized any website. The information can be veryfied. In a search type Mr Irresistible vs Black Widow. On CZW type Uncivilized and watch the video. It will show all information to be correct. Matt Hendrickson did create Spiderball. His claims are true and all can be veryfied. -unsigned edit by 68.197.253.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment It doesn't work like that - YOU provide the proof, don't tell us where to look for it. and second of all according to this edit here the article is about you, a vanity page which means you have a Conflict of interest here. You want to keep the article? you want to keep those claims? prove it by providing Reliable sources that shows that it's true. MPJ-DK 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That admission of identity puts it clearly into COI territory. I've posted an entry to WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 11:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Eliz81 and Tony Fox. This has also been cross-listed at the conflict of interest notice board. Bearian 23:46, 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 as unsourced, without any verifiable, third party coverage. Given that this appears to be the rationale behind the consensus for deletion, if sources are found, ask me and I'll restore the article. Cheers, Wily D 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Fighting System[edit]

Non-notable organisation seems to be one or a small group of schools, also unsourced.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Highly notable and large organization [22], many locations [23], e.g. Germany [24], Virginia [25], Canada [26], [27], the U.K. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], Greece [34], Tennessee [35], California [36], [37], Indiana [38], Denmark [39], Sweden [40], and on and on. It's a major org. teaching Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do, with notable senior instructors of the system besides its founder Paul Vunak. Its videos and recent executive PFS system are notable facts about the org. itself. JJL 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could some that be added to the article? There had been an notability tag on it for several months hence the afd--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, could you add independent sources? The list of links above are homepages for the organiization(s), as far as I can see. --B. Wolterding 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a detailed article on the organization, rather than the founder, in the issue of Black Belt Magazine that was on the stand in Feb. 2006 (hence probably the April 2006 issue--the one with Chuck Norris on the cover), but I cannot find a useful online archive at their site. This is the main media source for the martial arts. I'll keep looking for the more specific reference. JJL 04:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate shouldn't be closed till you've had a chance to look, would any libraries have back issues? Issue number/Date & page number should be fine sources don't have to be online, however the articel would need to state it is a major' org not just an org.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having multiple locations does not make one notable. Having information only from pages directly connected to the organization also fails. No convincing material to establish notability. NobutoraTakeda 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned.[reply]

[41]

Err is this a vote? I thought it was a discussion? As Peter says it's a valid comment--Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike through removed. Giggy _U^CP 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having multiple locations does not make one notable. Having information only from pages directly connected to the organization also fails. No convincing material to establish notability. Person may be banned but the comment is valid.Peter Rehse 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. —Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per some (but not all) of the sources cited by JJL, this looks notable to me. Burntsauce 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references in-article. Will ^(talk) 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People in many different places might practice it, but what about the average person in society? Without any reliable third-party sources independent of martial arts trainers available, the whole world won't know about it. Search engine results don't seem to include any mentions in newspapers, magazines and so on. Hence it isn't that notable. Has there ever been a widely viewed documentary made about this style? If so, it may have been a different story.--Kylohk 11:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a non notable organisation, fails WP:ORG. Not referenced at all. Giggy _U^CP 22:27, 23 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 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences on Kill Bill[edit]

Fails WP#TRIVIA, as it is essentially a long list of subjects that have no connection other than that Kill Bill makes allusion to them. In addition, while allusions may be an important aspect of the film Kill Bill, a list of them is not necessary. One other very important thing to note is that nothing in this article is sourced, and indeed, much of it is simply unciteable, as it simply depicts a similarity between the two films that is subject to interpretation, some may see the connection and some may not, but in the end whether or not it is an allusion can not be confirmed. Calgary 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeor delete sounds like a magnet for original research, anything useful should be in the main article --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with several Tarantino films, the article would be shorter if it just pointed out the bits he'd actually made up himself. Nick mallory 10:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, but reduce its length substantially. This probably can be done by eliminating uncited statements (which is why I added so many cn tags) and speculative statements. After it's down to a short article, merge into Kill Bill, which is where it was originally (read the discussion for both articles for more details about its history). Ward3001 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill Bill may be notable but it certainly isn't The Battleship Potemkin. It's just another movie, and having more than one article about it gives undue weight to the movie's importance in the history of cinema. This is more the converse of all those Whaddayacallit in popular culture articles - trivia that's really not all that important to the movie, let alone to the sum of human knowledge. --Charlene 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge the important ones into the main article. Also, the article is entirely WP:OR the way it stands. Corpx 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such a topic is inherently original research and belongs on a homepage and not an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 16:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [42][reply]
Delete OR. --Malcolmxl5 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge a short synopsis of the most well-substantiated influences into the main article. -Splitpeasoup 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kill Bill article. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Rackabello 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is trivia at best. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, massive trivia farm at best. Burntsauce 17:28, 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. Daniel Case 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Kristal[edit]

The article fails for notability criteria. I have prod-ed the article, but the tag was immediately removed by the author without any further improvement. There are no substantial wikilinks to this article, searching on google does not provide reliable sources, the subject has no significant history to be included as a Wikipedia article, etc. — Indon (reply) — 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, no incoming links, so likely non-notable. Also seems to violate WP:NOT#SOAP. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 02:53, 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 keep. Daniel Case 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans (video game)[edit]

No hint towards notability given; no secondary sources listed. Had been tagged with notability issues since Nov 06. PROD was contested without comment; some cleanup occured afterwards, but there's still no hint to notability. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reviewed by several games websites [43].--Nydas^(Talk) 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fixed the list issue partially. No comment regarding notability, but I'd merge it to Teen Titans. Guroadrunner 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the coverage received from independent sources Corpx 15:11, 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 Keep. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Girls of Bulgaria[edit]

It is unclear whether "Golden Girls of Bulgaria" (in English?) was really an official and/or widely known nmae for these athletes. No sources added since November 06. Does not add any information that could not be included in the articles about the athletes (which do seem notable). Also not a likely search term, in my point of view. PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Iliana Raeva, Lilia Ignatova and Anelia Ralenkova were all much the same age, were all raised on the same street in Sofia and all competed for the same Levski gymnastics club. The trio dominated the World and European rhythmic gymnastics championships in the late seventies and early eighties and were indeed known as the Golden girls in Bulgaria as this website from the Bulgarian National Sports Academy shows [44] shows. Gym media also notes the fact here [45] in a piece on their coach Neshka Robeva. Nick mallory 08:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite convinced. It seems that there's even no agreement how many "Golden Girls" there were - 3 or 4? Or even more? And the sources mainly cover the trainer. Maybe a note at Neshka Robeva would be in order. --B. Wolterding 11:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out they were called that. How important that is I don't know. Such names were never 'official'. The source mentions the trainer, but it were the gymnasts who were the golden girls. There were four of them, I just pointed out that three of them came from the same street. Nick mallory 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. All notable people with notable similarities that have been picked up and mentioned by the culture. I would like to see some more sourcing, though. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:07, 22 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 all. Sr 13 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No, your eyes do not deceive you. These articles have been renominated for deletion. Why? Because they don't belong in the encyclopedia. In the recent AfD discussion for List of atheist Nobel laureates, many issues were brought up as to the purpose of these articles, the most important being that many of the Keep votes were on the basis of "only delete this if the other lists are deleted". That's what I hope we can do here.

I must reiterate first and most importantly that the Nobel Prize is not given on the basis of religion. These lists are a textbook example of an irrelevant intersection between two characteristics, akin to creating lists of other award winners based on religion (imagine a List of Jewish Grammy winners or a List of Christian Academy Award winners). None of these lists, not a single one, explains why their religion was important, or how their religion influenced their work in the Nobel laureate's field. If, theoretically, there were a Nobel laureate whose work was influenced by their religion, then that would be notable...in that person's article.

The standard article flaws are also seen here. The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced, and in the case of the atheist list, none of the sources indicate a relation between their atheism and their work. These articles serve no purpose and fill no knowledge gap. With the above in mind, I urge deletion.

Note: These lists were previously nominated for deletion over a month ago. They were nominated without the atheist list, which underwent a separate AfD discussion that was closed two days ago.

The pages nominated for deletion are:

List of atheist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Christian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Hindu Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Humanist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Muslim Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hemlock Martinis 07:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The last AFD on these articles was closed only 2 days ago. Nothing has changed since then. JulesH 07:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was on one article only. During this nomination, several people objected based on the fact that other crap exists. While this is a poor argument, this sort of joint nom allows all these lists which shouldn't exist to be deleted. Nil Einne 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. We've just done this one. If you disagree with the community decision then tough, bring up something new or at least give a decent interval of time. Regardless of the merits of these articles, and I really couldn't care less either way, this is an abuse of the AfD process. Nick mallory 07:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you guys even read what I wrote? Only the atheist one was closed two days ago, the rest were not. This is about the entire collection of lists and not just the one list. --Hemlock Martinis 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joint nominations are always a bad idea and the Atheist list AfD, the one which closed two days ago, is the headline one. Presumably this was your choice, if so don't blame me for 'reading what you wrote'. The religion ones also survived AfD a month ago. Are you just going to keep nominating them till you happen to get your way? Nick mallory 08:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not behind either of the previous nominations, as you can see. Both of those AfDs were closed with no consensus, meaning they barely survived. There's nothing wrong with this nomination. --Hemlock Martinis 08:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but there's nothing wrong with me thinking nominating something for an AfD two days after its last AfD is excessive. No consensus means no consensus, it doesn't mean 'barely survived'. Nick mallory 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Barely survived" is actually somewhat accurate though. There were very big delete majorities on both, and the lists were given the benefit of the doubt. Bulldog123 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the key point. Part of the reason for no consensus was because people were making silly arguments like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This concern is perfectly addressed in this nom and therefore it's perfectly appropriate to relist it now. It's not Hemlock's fault if the previous nominator screwed up, nor is it Hemlock's fault if people don't understand othercrapexists is a poor argument, nor is it Hemlock's fault if admins don't ignore such poor arguments. Nil Einne 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per trivial intersection and over-categorization. For majority of these laureates, I doubt religion played an important role in their work. Corpx 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be more appropriate to make each of these a category of each winner's article as needed. I say more appropriate in the sense that I don't think either is appropriate, but if one must exist, the category system would be better. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics (and in this case, religion and being a Nobel laureate is even less than loosely associated). The Nobel laureates on these lists have nothing in common other than coincidently having the same religion/non-religion/philosophy. And to preclude "oh but it's well sourced" - doesn't matter, the design of these lists is fundamentally flawed, and it's still synthesis of published material, with the possible goal to advance a position. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The inclusion criteria are way too unencyclopedic and trivial for these lists, and should be tightened to "Nobel laureate X is listed here because his religion Y significantly contributed to his Nobel Prize, see source Z" (see below). In this and only this case, I would switch my vote to keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Unless we can establish that religion and winning the Nobel Prize are somehow connected or relevant to one another, the categorization is trivial at best. Calgary 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Not that I don't appreciate Hemlock's feeling that he/she knows better than everyone else who voted in the debate that was closed earlier in the week. I think I voted delete last week too, but what if everyone kept renominating an article, week after week? Let's close the debate again, and maybe you can nominate it next week. Mandsford 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is about the bundle of articles. It's so we can get to the root of the problem, since as you must have noticed from the atheist AfD, a ton of Keeps were on the basis of only deleting if all of them were deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to ignore the fact that a less contentious AFD than this one has just closed, then Keep, per all the reasons at the first AfD. Religious beliefs of leading thinkers is a notable topic (see [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]), therefore I see no reason not to keep a list of leading scientists by their religious beliefs. JulesH 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the inclusion criterion should not be "Person X is a Nobel laureate of religion Y" (as it currently is; quote from List of atheist Nobel laureates: "This list include only those Nobel laureates who have called themselves atheists, identified as atheists by informed and impartial sources and those who have expressed disbelief in the existence of God.") but "Nobel laureate X is listed here because his religion Y significantly contributed to his Nobel Prize with the reason Z." (which is why User:Hemlock Martinis created this AfD, I guess, and I quite agree with his assertion). Also, your sources make a sole distinction between "atheistm and religion" (which obviously exists), not "atheism and religion A, B, C, and D". Therefore, that would mean merging all religious Nobel laureate into one list, which is probably not what you're advocating. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those links explains why a Nobel Prize winner's religion was notable. In fact, only the first two even mention the Nobel Prize, and that was a tangential mention at best. --Hemlock Martinis 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per JulesH, religious beliefs of leading thinkers, and especially scientists are, for better or worse, a much discussed topic, giving these lists much more relevance than other arbitrary lists one could imagine like Jewish Grammy winners. All the ones except the atheist one are in serious need of sourcing though - and should only contain people who have made some verifiable public decleration of belief or disbelief. Iain99 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The atheist one needs sourcing too - none of the sources explain why their atheism is important. --Hemlock Martinis 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close per Mandsford. --Charlene 13:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm inclined to delete all of the above articles per nom, Sgeureka, Calgary. The link between religious affiliation (which can of course range from "baptized and that's it" to "fanatic") and scientific research stretches the idea of correlation to breaking point. Religion, if anything, has a stifling and certainly not beneficial influence on science, unless you're willing to call theology a science. But I agree with Mansford we should cool off for some time before discussing this AfD again. --Targeman 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All Hemlock mentioned very clearly the reason for this fast renom in his deletion rationale, so I highly disagree with the many "speedy close" !votes. There is flat-out no room for improvement for these lists because nobody can show how they achieve notability as independent articles. So whether we wait 2 days or 2 months, the lists are not going to get any better and that is the only reason people wait before renominations anyway. Some may argue that religion has something to do with science (a personal style, a worldly outlook), as was put in the other AfDs, but never was this argument taken to the next level and applied directly to Nobel Prize laureates. There is a reason very few Nobel laureates mention their religion in their Nobel autobiographies, and indeed, when a massive study was conducted to note the religious (or lack thereof, atheism) background of the laureates, numerous were hesistant to even mention their religious background (or lack thereof) and deemed it fitfully irrelevant. This is WP:OCAT#Non-notable in list format. Bulldog123 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Just crap. KP Botany 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for that. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom., sgeureka, and Bulldog123.--JayJasper 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. What is the time period between nominations typically considered reasonable? I'm not sure what it is, but I am certain that a 2-day period between an AfD closing and a new nomination is unreasonable. I appreciate that all of these have been nominated together this time, but please wait a while before nominating again. Nick Graves 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this nom includes all of the related lists. It is a completely different nomination. --Hemlock Martinis 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination includes List of atheist Nobel laureates, which just survived deletion a couple days ago. There is no argument being made here for deletion that wasn't made in the recent deletion attempt. It's too soon to renominate List of atheist Nobel laureates, whether or not it is bundled with nominations for other articles. Nick Graves 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Many of the Keeps in the Atheist AfD were made on the basis of not deleting that list until all of these lists could be deleted. Rather than wait around a month to get that nomination made, I went ahead and did it now. --Hemlock Martinis 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that religion is not an issue or qualifier in the awarding of the prize, and lists such as these exist to showcase how superior individuals of one religion or another (or none at all) are based on how many recipients are in the list. change to Close. While consensus does change, another nomination so soon after the last is pure folly and an attempt to circumvent the result of the 15th. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. This is to remove concerns of bias by deleting all of these equally bad articles. --Hemlock Martinis 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. While I really don't care for the "play until you win!" mentality of re-nominating articles for which you are dissatisfied with the first outcome, I think that all of these really do need to go. These are unencyclopedic and the inclusion critera if murky at best, leading to WP:OR problems. Trusilver 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Since last AFD closed as no consensus, I see no problem with the renomination. DCEdwards1966 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nom these separately. Jtrainor 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because when we do that, people claim POV and bias and all sorts of unfun stuff. They're all equally bad and of the same topic. A bundle nom is perfectly appropriate here. --Hemlock Martinis 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what people claim. Policy is what matters. Jtrainor 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what policy would that be? These lists are original research. These lists consist of an unimportant intersection between two characteristics. These lists are poorly sourced or sourceless. These lists do not say why any of these people's religion is important as related to their field of study, and therefore do not even assert the purpose the lists. What policy, pray tell, are you speaking of? --Hemlock Martinis 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - per nom. Nil Einne 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - please; there is not purpose for this type of information. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per Hemlock Martinis. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - while I'm technically against any list being articles (per a few mos policies), I would have to say that a quick renomination after a decision to keep is abuse of the process. We don't allow deleted articles to be re-created immediately (see speedy templates), so let's not allow a kept article to instantaneously nominated again, it's an abuse of the process meant at gathering a different audience. --daniel folsom 02:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...you want to delete the articles, but not right now? Are we waiting for them to ripen? If something should be deleted, delete it! I'm tired of saying over and over again that this is a different nomination. The previous AfD was No Consensus because many of the Keeps said that we shouldn't just delete the atheist one and allow the others to remain. And the other lists are actually worse than that one! So instead of following some arbitrary practice, I went ahead and nominated all of these for deletion. Had this debate been titled "List of Christian Nobel laureates", would you have still voted to keep? Or was it just because I unfortunately chose the same name as a recent AfD? --Hemlock Martinis 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All. I was the nominator of this article (the atheist article, alone) for its last AfD. In that AfD (which you can read above) almost all of the votes to Keep said, "either this article should stay, or they all should be deleted". In other words, the admin who closed it correctly identified that there was no consensus as to keeping or deleting the atheist article specifically. However, there was a very strong consensus to delete all of the articles, which was not possible under the terms of the previous AfD. Now, we have an AfD where precisely that has been proposed, and all of the same arguments against policy are still valid. Delete. Chubbles 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - totally non-encyclopedic lists that link two unrelated characteristics of the men and women included. No arguments are advanced in any of the articles to suggest that there is a causal (or indeed any) relationship between the two characteristics. Bigdaddy1981 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above, and please stop trying to raise procedural concerns since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 09:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For perhaps the one-millionth time, the list of Jewish Nobel laureates is not a list of individuals according to their religion; it is a list of Jews, which Wikipedia defines in its article on Jews as "members of the Jewish people, an ethnic group originating in the Israelites of the ancient Middle East and others who converted to Judaism throughout the millennia." You can be a "native born" member of this group by virtue of having had one or two ethnically Jewish parents, or you can be a "naturalized" member by virtue of formal conversion to Judaism. This is how the world has defined the Jews for most of the last three millennia. As to whether the intersection of the two categories "Jews" and "Nobel laureates" is "irrelevant," it should be noted that when one cross-correlates two variables and finds a correlation spike that is even 100% larger than expected, that point of intersection is considered statistically very significant. In this case, the correlation spike is 10,000% larger than expected. While correlation doesn't always imply causality, for such large deviations, it virtually always does. Jinfo 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment "correlation doesn't always imply causality, for such large deviations, it virtually always does" - how about a list of male Nobel prize winners? Would you be similarly willing to argue that this correlation is causal? Or how about -as mentioned below - Caucasian prize winners? Bigdaddy1981 17:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they imply causal linkage; do you actually think that these correlations are purely random? With that said, they do not necessarily call for a sexist or racist explanation, which is what I think you are attempting to tar me with. Nor do they imply that Wikipedia needs to have articles on any of these subjects. The only point that I was trying to address in my original Comment was the claim repeatedly made in the comments above that this intersection of categories is “trivial,“ “coincidental,” or “irrelevant,” which I believe to be erroneous in the case of Jewish Nobel laureates. To the extent that we have a scientific definition of “significance,” the intersection of “Jews” and “Nobel laureates” is highly significant, as are the two examples you cited above. They are all the product of complex historical, cultural, societal, and possibly biological causes, none of which are at all well understood at present. Jinfo 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then create an article on the "historical, cultural, societal, and possibly biological" linkage between ethnicity and Nobel prizewinning. Bigdaddy1981 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Again, what are the sources for your claims above? I mean, obviously (non-)religion and ethnicity are not random causes for the way you live your life. Growing up as a fat kid or a pimply teenager, liking SciFi shows, growing up with a single parent, being the pet of the family (I think you get the point) aren't random either, still quite obviously make poor category crossovers. But to make wikipedia better, we need sources and non-OR ideas before we can back them up with examples. What you're saying is keep the examples and wait for non-OR ideas that may be added to WP later. Wrong approach for wikipedia. Until we have a well-sourced wiki article saying that there is a non-trivial, non-coincidental, relevant causal link between religion/ethnicity/whatever and being a Nobel laureate, there simply is no such link without going into WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- (1) Source? (2) Apart from my standpoint that religion is not directly linked to becoming/being a Noble Prize winner, ethnicity isn't either until there is a well sourced wiki article about the Influence of ethnicity on Nobel laureates. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, so if we removed the Jews and nominated all the other religions for deletion, would that then be satisfactory? The Jewish list was the one which I had considered might have some legitimate body of scholarship on this intersection. As for the others, I really can't see any current rationale for why this intersection is significant. Chubbles 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Sgeureka, all you have to do is replace ethnicity with the word religion in the following sentence: "Nobel laureate X is listed here because his religion Y significantly contributed to his Nobel Prize, see source Z" (see below). Either way it ends up being a vio of WP:SYNTH. We've heard this ethnicity argument time and time again and it doesn't matter either which way. And as mentioned in the previous AfD, a List of Caucasian Nobel Prize laureates won't work despite a 1000% (maybe more?) larger than expected ratio. There's also scholarship on the severe lack of women Nobel Prize laureates, but how on earth anyone can write an article on Women and a specific prize is beyond me. You might as well write one for women and every prize. Sex and ethnicity don't work. Neither does sexual preference for that matter, and there just so happen to be a lot of gay Nobel Prize laureates. Bulldog123 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I suggest that you also consider deletion of Nobel laureates by country. Many of these “countries” are also ethnicities. Nobel prizes are supposed to be awarded without regard to nationality. What is the significance of a person’s country of birth in this connection? A significant fraction of Nobel laureates achieved what they did only by virtue of leaving (in some cases fleeing) their country of birth. (Note all of the starred names.) Jinfo 17:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I agree. That article should be nominated because it is actually pretty misleading and subject to different interpretations as to who belongs to what nation. On the other hand, the statement about those "countries" being shown off as ethnicities isn't really true. There is no United Kingdom ethnicity (as other amalgamated nations), and the list pays no attention to whether the person actually belongs to the ethnicity of the country. But yes, it should be deleted for a lot of other reasons. if a List of German Nobel laureates existed that listed everyone with half-German ethnicity, it would be equally worthy of deletion. Bulldog123 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I partly agree with that, with a minor reason for opposition because people are defined by date of birth and death, nationality, and best-known occupation (see any surname page). What about a sortable table on the main list? – sgeureka ^t•c 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree - for instance, John Harsanyi is included as American and Hungarian and John Polanyi as Canadian, Hungarian and German. It seems each country is allocated the maximum possible number of laureates no matter if they are double (or triple) counted -- absurd. Bigdaddy1981 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the closing admin for the prior AfD, I don't believe a procedural speedy close is warranted, for two reasons. Firstly, the prior AfD ended as a No consensus, which defaults to Keep, but (unlike a straight Keep) does not prejudice re-nomination. Secondly, this is a bundle nom for a number of pages, so the situation is not the same as the previous AfD. As such, this AfD should remain open for its full term. Walton^One 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I consider this a completely different AfC submission. And, as previously noted, the two things have nothing to do with one another. Cap'n Walker 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIR. Maybe the religious beliefs of certain people who happened to be Nobel laureates were notable, but there is no actual connection between "religious beliefs" and "Nobel laureate". ugen64 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - 1. Walton closed List of atheist Nobel laureates AfD#1 and if he does not want to speedy delete this AfD (see his post above), that pretty much resolves the speedy delete issue. 2. The trouble I have with these list is that the WP:N does not relate to their being atheist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, etc. The WP:N goes to their being Nobel laureates and we already have such a list. A list of Nobel laureates whose receipt of the Nobel Prize was based in part on their being atheist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, etc as confirmed by WP:RS may be a viable list. However, these two-criterion lists seem to piggyback on the notability of one of the criteria (Nobel Prize) as a pretext to form a list composted of the second criteria (atheist, Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) where (i) the second criteria lacks a sufficient WP:RS relevance connection to the first criteria and (ii) the second criteria lacks sufficient WP:RS material on which to base a list membership criteria on its own merits. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- from what i've read thus far it seems there are fair arguments for deleting these articles. however it seems that it might also follow under the same arguments that these articles also be deleted- Female Nobel Prize laureates, List of Oldest Living Nobel Laureates, and Nobel Prize laureates by secondary school affiliation.thoughts? Some thing 01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just put List of Oldest Living Nobel Laureates up for AFD Corpx 01:32, 22 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 01:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hayes[edit]

I previously nominated Hayes along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Hayes is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transfer to Smith.

He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Hayes is neither. He's never held elected office and is not even known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.

He is also not a noted political philosopher and does not even appear to write the party pamphlets or articles in his party's paper that just about every other senior member of this small group does.

He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable politician who hasn't held any representative office. Nick mallory 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Mr. Hayes has been mentioned in a number of reliable sources, all of them seem to be trivial mentions, and are generally about his party, not him. JulesH 07:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Mallory. Number 57 10:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bigdaddy1981 has previously nominated a whole bunch of SWP leading members for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Smith (politician)). This nomination seems to be part of an ongoing campaign (witness the use of 'Smith' instead of Hayes in the nom - evidence of a cut-and-paste job). As it happens, I'm somewhat inclined to have this article deleted and I write as someone who HAS heard of Smith. Sorry, Hayes. Emeraude 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment rather than use an innuendo-based approach, why not read the above argument. I clearly state that I had nominated Smith, Hayes and others for an AfD and was convinced to do a number of them seperately. Which I am. Nothing sinister in that. Yes, its a cut and paste from Smith - the issues are near identical. Please remember to assume good faith. Bigdaddy1981 16:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - was not my intention. Merely wanted to direct readers to the original discussion. (And, having suffered a power cut between reading your nom and making my comment, it was not fresh in my mind, so I missed your reference.) Emeraude 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I should have included a link to the original AfD anyway. Bigdaddy1981 17:54, 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 as nn student org. Daniel Case 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Brook Independent[edit]

Non-notable student organization website. The only real assertion of notability is that it's an "affiliate" member of google news, and that an organization it's associated with won an award. — PyTom 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete as failing WP:Notability and WP:V VanTucky ^(talk) 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VanTucky. The Stony Brook Statesman is the main campus paper; this seems to be a fringe, non-notable website. Also, I'm not sure how often this site produces notable content for Google News, given the school's low profile and suburban location. Slic e NYC (Talk) 00:17, 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 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Charmed[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}}.

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT - This is a list of terms and their definitions, which is what a dictionary is for. On top of that, all these words are cited to the episodes instead of a secondary source, qualifying it as WP:OR Corpx 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless these terms are necessary to explain the Charmed article they are not appropriate for Wikipedia (even then I would urge a sidebox approach). That said, this could be a useful addition to the Charmed wiki. Cedars 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, I just thought I'd bring up the article Spells in Harry Potter, which seems quite similar. Useight 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of that either, but at least it has some references. Corpx 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think wiktionary wouldn't want fictional words and phrases (and I guess WP:NOT#DICT exists because wiktionary already covers the real-life dict defs, so this policy should not apply here). Furthermore, this is one list collecting X phrases, not X pages about one dict def. It's also not indiscriminate and is suitably referenced, so I think this list is fine. (Except that it's a bit fancrufty, but then again I've never watched this show.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it referenced? It's referenced to the episode where the phrase was mentioned, making it a primary source and not really a valid reference Corpx 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How else would you reference it? The shows definitions for things are different than the normally accepted myths. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper reference would be to find a non-trivial independent third party (ie. not blogs or somebody's web page, but a reliable source, online or not, such as a newspaper article or a book) that is discussing terms in Charmed. Are there any? (To be honest, after a search I'm not seeing many non-trivial third parties discussing any aspect of the TV program, let alone the words used in it.) --Charlene 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple amazon search: [53][54], although I'm not sure how trivial or third-party they are. But almost every major cult-genre TV show publishes so called companion guides, and if it's just that the list doesn't mention those (official and/or independent) guides, then slap {{unreferenced}} on them. In spite of that, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Primary information says "Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source" (and then goes on to say that of course secondary sources are still preferred.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point - Referencing it like that is WP:OR Corpx 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The page combines the powers, demons, ect. The page is to keep all the terms from having their own articles. The charmed episodes use a lot of powers, demons that may be confusing when used in articles as they are different the common myths. (Titans, Valkyries, ect.) A couple editors are currently working on cleaning up the article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sgeureka. Notes here: first is that it is planned to have the list trimmed considerably to remove any term not strictly spoken on the series (reduce fancruftiness...it'll be quite a task, bear with us); second, a primary source does not original research make. Certainly secondary sources are always preferred, but primary sources can be used. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. " per WP:OR Corpx 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting that line yourself. How are we "interpreting" source material, when we simply take a term used on the series and tell what it is? That isn't an interpretation, but a statement of in-universe facts stated from an out-of-universe perspective (which is perfectly acceptable). I concede that list-creep has occurred, but as I said, efforts are underway to clean it up. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 15:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a fancrufty list of definitions. If this article stays, some of the terms are not Charmed-specific, e.g. telepathy, time travel. What next? "Door" - a main entrance to the Halliwells' house that frequently gets blown up? Clarityfiend 15:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a fansite for your favorite TV show. Propaniac 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little to point out that hasn't already. I know that similar articles exist because they haven't been deleted yet. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, that's not a legitimate argument. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While it's interesting, the article is just cruft that belongs elsewhere. Trusilver 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mentioned many terms, people and demons in the Charmed universe differ from their real world conterpart. Also as mentioned the article is being cleaned up. I also partly agree with Clarityfiend. Only Charmed specific terms etc. should be used in the article. Where real world terms etc. are used and differ significantly enough in-universe, these should be kept to disticnguish them from their real world counterpart. One other thing is the argument about references. Surely the best reference is the TV show itself.--NeilEvans 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show is a primary reference, just like one would be in witnessing a car accident. The testimony from the eye witness is not acceptable here. However, if a journalist took a quote from the eye witness, that quote would be. Corpx 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However (using your example here), this list doesn't use the person witnessing the event as the source, but a security video recording of the accident, which can be verified by anyone watching it. This list simply transfers a visual and spoken source into written text, and then lists the source for the info. Describing/summarizing something that has sources does not constitute WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, written in an in-universe way. A lot of these are dumb with a capital D, as well; who'd've thought that electricity generation is the ability to generate electricity? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like we said, we're trying to clean it up, there is a lot of cruft we're trying to kick out. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of it is original research. Cleaning it up won't fix that problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - please save us from trivia about shows that have no redeeming value. There is no purpose to tracking this type of information. Trivia is not what an encyclopedia is about. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments re:delete that I list here for convenience.

Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia allows this kind of list (see point 2), even if only vaguely.
The need of cleanup and minor or major de-fancrufting is not ground for deletion, especially as people have already volunteered for cleanup work. (If however the article has not improved in a reasonable time from now, maybe because it can never be more than fancruft, which I doubt, then it should be nominated again.)
In-universe style is not a ground for deletion, however {{In-universe}} exists for cleanup advice.
Having encyclopedic lists of terms in specialized real-life fields also exist, see Glossary of Lepidopteran terms for an example.
Yes, this list needs trimming to get rid of fancrufty-one-minor-appearance-in-one-episode-only items, and/or expansion for the important terms. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you interpret "List of minor characters" to mean "List of terms" ?? List of terms is in violation of WP:NOT (policy) and this is purely WP:OR, which is from WP:FIVE. Corpx 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other article exists doesnt mean this should - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Corpx 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not interpret "List of minor characters" to mean "List of term", but rather "minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts" as "List of term". And as said before, WP:OR is made-up stuff, however almost all items on this list cite their (primary) sources as recommended per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Primary information (i.e. it is not OR). I am well aware that OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I don't know why you're citing it here. Do you want to imply that Glossary of Lepidopteran terms shouldn't exist? Because I thought it was a fine example that demonstrated that a list of short-ish definitions of a specialised field can very well make for an encyclopedic list. (I have already stated my concerns about this page before though, and they are not all positive. I am however concerned that a let's-delete-it-because-it's-not-perfect crusade takes places here instead of there-is-room-for-legitimate-improvement-so-let's-keep-it. And I am saying this as person who has never watched an episode of this show.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is also conclusions derived from personal observation of the subject. Watching Charmed then forming fragments of the show into lists and dictionaries and histories and such (as opposed to summarizing the plot in a way that reflects the structure of the plot) is original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you really made me doubt my policy knowledge, I re-read WP:OR, and I quote (I now resist the temptation to bold the following sentences and add three exclamation marks): "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. <newline> Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." I also read section A of the Charmed term list, and only term "Amulets of Protection" makes some claims where I can't tell if they're OR or not, the rest is fine as it is descriptive and perfectly in line with WP:OR. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed is not itself a source. It is the subject. If I were to add to cat, I could not add my observations of my own cat with <ref>AMIB's cat</ref>.

Additionally, this list synthesizes the plot of the various Charmed episodes into a guide on its setting. This synthesis is rather lame synthesis, since it's just watching the show and noting whenever a spell is cast and making a list of these spells, but you are still watching the show and drawing original conclusions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please also note this line from WP:OR: An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following....It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. (WP:RS) Neologisms, of course, are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities (in this case a community of Charmed writers and fans). For terms used in a work of fiction, the work itself can be an appropriate source but only to a certain extent. For the scope and nature of this type of article, independent third-party sources should be required and the onus is on the contributer to provide a source if challenged. Canuckle 22:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never cited that, and don't consider it relevant to this case. WP:NOT#DICT is not really relevant here, IMO, since this doesn't even rise to the level of being a dictionary. This is "List of (random things that don't fit into a list that might be useful) in Charmed". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding not to you but to sgeureka who cited WP:OR as supporting making descriptive claims. I noted it also excludes neologisms. Canuckle 23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. WP:OR says the work of fiction (or parts of this fiction) is not a reliable source, however Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Primary information says the opposite. Non-episodic sources seem to exist (e.g. amazon [55] "Now the millions of teenage Charmed fans can share the sisters' secrets and guard wisely the spells, incantations and love potions revealed in this book", [56] "The Book of Shadows a compilation of the spells used on each show", [57] "A guide to the television show and its stars includes background information on Wicca, examines tools and elements of witchcraft, and provides recipes and rituals beneficial for success in love or business.") If some-one wants to add them as references, just please don't fall back on the no-win fallacy that "it's not a second/third-party publication, therefore it's trivial" and "it's not an official guide, therefore it's unreliable" then ;-). I've made a note on Talk:Charmed and asked fans of that show to add references to this list. Now it's in their hands. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I used, The Book of Three to reference it, would that be acceptable for you guys? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another part of the subject, since it's an officially licensed guide written by writers on the series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary or glossary. In addition, the article is heavily origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia has categories for Category:Glossaries and Category:Lists of words, which have roughly 200 pages in them total. I have added Category:Glossaries to the list, and therefore additionally (to my already stated keep "vote") recommend renaming this list to Glossary of Charmed terms or something similiar if it survives this AfD, in order to make the list's right of existance more obvious. (The OR claim needs to be judged by the closing admin, so I won't comment on it any further than I already have.) – sgeureka ^t•c 12:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each glossary should be judged on its own merit and there is just no real world coverage for a fictional one like this. Corpx 14:55, 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 Keep. Non admin closure. --Jorvik 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EcosimPro[edit]

Article reads like a brochure for this arcane piece of software. May not satisfy notability guidelines. Douglasmtaylor 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Dumb it down, or delete - ~~if it's worthwhile or highly notable, it will be rewritten.~~ It needs fixing and dumbing down. Guroadrunner 11:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I really appreciate your idea. I see your point and I'll try to rewrite the article in an easier way in the following days. Anyway, EcosimPro is a mathematical program and some concepts involves complex explanations. ;) Berkut wiki 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - As you can see in the article history, the administrator Evilclown93 let it keep. Berkut wiki 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that Evilclown93's removal of the prod template does not necessarily mean the user supports the article, just that the dispute over deletion was noted and so should be moved here with an afd tag. Douglasmtaylor 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is a cooperation, I thing EcosimPro is a great software which is worth to have an article and I ask you for using your contributions to make its article a good one. I have read a lot of articles similars than the mine: CATIA, Modelica, PSPICE and so on (I think these programs are great too). I know my article can be improved and I want to make it 'live', e.i., I'll add information as soon as I'll have preparated it. Berkut wiki 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — Berkut wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I changed your first keep to a comment since you are only allowed to include one keep-or-delete opinion in these discussions. —David Eppstein 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ecosim and simplify. A Google scholar search finds almost 1500 scientific references to Ecosim, indicating to me that it's notable. EcosimPro, only around 100. So if EcosimPro is a commercialized and expanded version of Ecosim, it deserves at most a brief mention in a longer Ecosim article, I think. And there's a lot of cruft in the article that should just be removed — this is not the place for a detailed tutorial on examples of using ecosim, nor for long lists of vaguely-related links. —David Eppstein 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move done Giggy _U^CP 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. EcosimPro is a program totally different than Ecosim but people usually think like you: EcosimPro is an extension of EcosimPro, but it is not. I have read a lot of references of Ecosim which are wrong (they have to be EcosimPro). The name is a little confuse but EcosimPro and Ecosim can be merge. Berkut wiki 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Desperately needs cleaning up, but it doesn't appear to be particularly less notable than any other software items on Wikipedia. Not having heard of something is not a valid reason for deletion.-- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Giggy _U^CP 00:10, 23 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 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravemist[edit]

I initially deleted this as not asserting notability but the author quickly recreated it. While I admire their effort, this article is a clear attempt to promote the band and it is mostly an autobiographical conflict of interest. It is written by User:Nnoctis who you will note is one of the two musicians in the band. She also spread mentions of the band all over Wikipedia, including List of Satanists, Gothabilly, and... Absinthe in popular culture. While there are some links to band interviews in minor blogs and subculture web sites, there are no reliable references backing up any claims of notability. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. This is not an easy case. For this music genre, getting what we call "reliable sources" is quite hard, and having interviews at two websites that I have never heared of doesn't establish notability per se. I have tagged the page with {{music-importance}} and will switch to keep if at least one independent (non-interview) source is found by someone else. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few mentions on unreliable review sites does not notability make. --Eyrian 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI and WP:NMG. --Malcolmxl5 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A self made promotional article created by the members of a non-notable band. If you're going to create an article trying to advertise for your band at least avoid the first person when doing so. Geez. NeoFreak 20:42, 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 as hoax. Daniel Case 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert James Ley[edit]

Patent hoax. Lame one at that. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case where even though the words all make sense, I would still consider it patent nonsense. Resolute 04:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 04:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's so silly that I can't believe I just went to the bother of checking, but Google is strangely quiet on a man who is worth 900M. Iain99 06:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, nonsense, fails WP:NOTE, and WP:CRYSTAL. Useight 08:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly a hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources. Liransh 11:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Also no ghits for company. --Fabrictramp 17:02, 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 keep. —Kurykh 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Paper Bag[edit]

Delete - unreleased album plus no single release date equals WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- the album was released 12 June (see the Wikipedia article on the album, among other sources). For more on this particular song, see http://www.down-south.com/content/view/625/1/. Unsure of single release date, though - sounds like it will be soon though. Guroadrunner 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now per Guroadrunner. Bearian 01:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album was released. Be patient! Giggy _U^CP 00:08, 23 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 unverifiable and likely nn. Daniel Case 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sorrell[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no references.Callelinea 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources provided, none found in a search of Google News Archive. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable artist, no sources on page and no G-Hits. Pats Sox Princess 04:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Del. Who's this guy? Orphan article, no ref's. Guroadrunner 11:37, 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. -- RHaworth 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto Complete[edit]

Previously deleted, as it's a compendium of existing articles, which is pointless and a GFDL problem due to lack of contributor history. And can someone do something about the user recreating it? SamBC 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as GFDL violation (due to lack of edit histories of the articles the content is copied from). Salt the page and warn the user not to create such a page again, especially since the intro to the article can be construed as a threat that he's going to keep on recreating the article if it's deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per NeoChaosX. Resolute 04:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete and Salt, per above. That'll do. ZZ 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt, per all reasons above. Lord Sesshomaru
Speedy Delete and Salt NeoChaosX says it all really. Iain99 08:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt also warn the author about recreating pages that violate GFDL. Wildthing61476 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt - Pointless compendium of info already found on other articles. Delted and recreated, with a personal message in the opening from the only major editor. Get rid of it. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 13:40, 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 keep. John254 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Shankarananda Saraswati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The text of this article was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on the prior AfD. DRV overturned, finding this version substantially different and reliably-sourced. Still, Weak Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep This is a bit better than the first one that was deleted, though I still think it doesn't pass WP:BIO. If the article were cleaned up to show notability then I would change my vote.TheRingess (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is possible to find reliable sources for this article. A google search shows up quite a few reliable, published sources om the net. The article is also verifiable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ I don't see reliable third-party sources commenting on his significance, and nothing in the mainstream press. The Google search offered above is mostly a collection of web sites run by individuals or small organizations, nothing like a press web site. He is the author of three books, at least two of which can be bought on Amazon, but there are no published book reviews that I could find. EdJohnston 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Keep based on new sources that have just been added to the article. The most convincing was probably reference #3, the interview on Australian radio, of which a transcript is provided, and reference #2, the article in the Australian Yoga Life magazine, which is readable as a PDF file. The articles in The Age (an Australian daily newspaper) aren't available free and I wasn't able to look at them. EdJohnston 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan-authored page that, even while inflating the achievements of the subject, fails really to assert enough notability per WP:BIO. The listed titles do not seem to pass the test for creating notable authors either. Eusebeus 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough notability established but but clean up can add to it Taprobanus 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to include references pertaining to the requirement of notability and in particular appearances in mainstream radio and newspaper. I invite the editors above who challenge the article based evidence of notability to please reviewYogidude 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The addition of reliable and verifiable general interest publication and media sources cements the claim of notability per Wikipedia:Notability. Alansohn 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston and Alansohn. This is not the same article previously deleted but rather a better sourced and supported one. IPSOS (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well done to all who improved the article. Neil ╦ 14:01, 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 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Fakery[edit]

Neologism, there's never going to be proper refs for this, it's a magnet for POV and synthesis RxS 02:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

KEEP this term is what everyone refers to when talking about the conundrum that is best explained in the September Clues videos 202.180.71.218 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:202.180.71.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP It's obvious that there are plenty of references to TV Fakery over the last 20 years to prove that the term is not a neologism. The page is presented from a neutral point of view and it doesn't fit well into any other wikipedia category. 70.231.236.128 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:70.231.236.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Every section and statement in this article is properly sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. The article covers an important and growing problem as is indicated by the variety of sources cited, from US Government agencies such as the National Security Council to top universities such as MIT, the problem of TV Fakery is exacerbated by new technology. The examples cited range from conventional forgery at NBC to the new TV Fakery made possible through computers as evidenced by the tornado photo that was shown on multiple networks in New Zealand. It is a serious subject not covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, where there are longstanding articles on topics such as Art Forgery and Propaganda it deserves a page of its own. Like Identity Theft and Spam TV Fakery is a relatively new but important problem of the digital age. The poster who tried to vandalize this page seems to be an active poster on 9/11 conspiracy theories and his neutrality is in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.236.128 (talk • contribs).
- But which reliable sources are discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery"? The article appears to be about the phrase, not the tendency. I don't see any reliable sources whatsoever discussing THE PHRASE "TV Fakery". This is a neologism - possibly a protologism, since it doesn't seem to be a commonly used phrase. --Charlene 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.

Ramsay Busted for More TV Fakery -- New York Magazine
TV fakery revealed in show on opening of Titanic's safe -- Chicago Sun Times
Double take -- Guardian UK "In an age of TV fakery, when even the real people are suspect..."

It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. Bsregistration 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — User:Bsregistration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's no "conspiracy theory" or soapbox issues on the page, nor is there any mention of TV Fakery on the locked 9/11 conpspiracy theory page. The Soapbox comments and multiple posts from Dennis The Tiger are simply reflective of his own views and are not substantiated by anything on the page at all.

Weak delete, I can see the phrase being citeable (it is not properly attributed now). This article has serious WP:SOAPBOX and WP:POV issues right now, though. Certainly there are times when there are charges of fakery that are not substantiated. (Ha. "Fakery" is getting flagged by my spellchecker.) Worse, there are times when it is forever disputed. So the article will need a much more rigorous and serious restructuring before it shows this topic in a policy-compliant light. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Examples are substantiated The controversies section was taken out, and just as there may be disputes in Art Forgery that's no reason that it's not a valid topic. It's a large and growing problem, and it's currently from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsregistration (talk • contribs) — Bsregistration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per WP:NEO - "a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.". So far, none of the links here or on the article page provide these sources Corpx 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The concept is a valid one even if the term is a neoligism. Just move the page to a new title. How about "Faked photography used in TV" or something similar? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how this can be an article with it's current information. I searched for more evidence but found nothing that would be construed as based on facts.--MONGO 08:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge I can't find an article on wikipedia that details photographic forgery, so this seems to be under-documented, oddly enough. The title "TV fakery" is bad as it's probably a neologism, "photo and video forgery" would be better. EverGreg 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand TV Fakery is real term of use. It has over 41,400 google hits including:

TV fakery is alluded to in a Family Guy episode (plane crash).

Another tv fakery is the titanic safe opening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3853272.html

TV fakery - in this case, I think TV Fakery is referring to TV's perpetual smurfy portrayal of real life: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077854/

Here is a case just published where they faked how many fish were caught on a tv show - they don't use the term tv fakery in the first article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2076254.ece

But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html

TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html

More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm

Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465

Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml

And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448

A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pba11 (talk • contribs) — Pba11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please Keep: TV Fakery is a topic of growing interest. See http://livevideo.com/socialservice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.18.72 (talk) — User:68.20.18.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - not a likely search term or a neutral article title; we already have Photomanipulation which redirects to Photo editing. Any sourced content belongs there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and EXPAND Photomanipulation is a generic topic that covers things like using photoshop. TV Fakery is a separate topic and involves manipulation of the public through broadcast media. It's very much its own topic and it doesn't fit well into any other area on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.236.128 (talk) — User:70.231.236.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- - Keep, the media loves us to believe that TV is real. Image Manipulation Ethics and Congressman DeWine http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/dewine.html TV faked images every day and people believe they are real. the illusion must be

brought to light. Lying with Pixels. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115 TV is the biggest propaganda tool. Keep this and keep it going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwitsend (talk • contribs) — Atwitsend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Wow! Conspiracy theory! I'm going to have to tell the Freemasons about this person! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: this is a very important topic, and can be presented from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.250.21 (talk) — User:216.161.250.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP: This is an important topic and will become increasingly relevant as the power of video capture, editing, and doctoring becomes increasingly in the hands of more people around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.10.248 (talk) — User:196.40.10.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Maybe redirect to photomanipulation. The biggest problem I have is that the article feels like it's trying to push an agenda itself (in violation of WP:SOAP) and suggest that there is a conspiracy and/or another agenda. It tries, but it also fails, to show notability outside of the term "TV fakery" being a snide comment in many OpEd pieces. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely KEEP. This is most important in ascertaining the true nature of what happened on "9/11". It's very obvious from the TV archives that a great deal of TV footage is fake. http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive, www.livevideo.com/socialservice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.76.222 (talk • contribs)
- We are not a soapbox, as per my vote above. Try again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning, and a swarm of IPs and SPAs crawling out of the woodwork to support keeping an article is rarely a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge sourced material into Urban legends. Bearian 01:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GFDL says you can't do that. I think you mean merge and redirect. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNothing on the page is an urban legend and it's all properly sourced. It's a serious topic and mere slurs about "urban legends" shouldn't carry weight hereBsregistration 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC) This is the user's second "vote" on this page - First Vote[reply]

- Comment - User:Bsregistration has now cast two keep !votes. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This information is sourced and neutral. TV fakery will be more prevalent in the future with continued advancements with video editing abilities. Also, the votes for deletion seem to be for political reasons. Babya 07:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Babya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Really? What kind of political reasons do you see? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see at least five entries from Dennis The Tiger, it's not a popularity contest and I don't see any substance to your arguments. I agree with the poster who thinks you have some kind of agenda. 70.132.1.227 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...this is a non-sequitur. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The reference to a TV station being tricked into broadcasting a video of a New Zealand tornado is proof enough that this is notable. As others point out, the improvement in photographic manipulation means that this is something that those "in charge" need to be aware of and on guard for. Mandsford 00:20, 22 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. —Kurykh 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Brewing Company[edit]

This was originally speedy-deleted per CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability. At least one source was also provided at the DRV, in an attempt to satisfy WP:V. Still, Weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add references Notable. One of the first brewpubs in Manhattan --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending incorporation of references from DRV. Being first is a claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They also have won industry awards [58]. JulesH 07:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless massively improved. As explained at DRV, I don't consider the first brewpub in Manhatten claim to be credible. I suspect it may be notable, but it needs to be converted to a form that is verifiable, which should also solve the notability concern. GRBerry 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per article cited by JulesH ("Double threat: Real Ale and an award-winning pilsener are a winning combination for Manhattan Brewing Co - 1990 Microbrewery Report", Modern Brewery Age, May 14, 1990) but this extinct brewpub doesn't seem to be nearly as notable at the original Manhattan Brewing Company which was located in Chicago and accounts for most of the Google hits for the term "Manhattan Brewing Company". -- DS1953 ^talk 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Newyorkbrad 23:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 29 hits for this business in the NYT Archive including these 3 that affirm that MBC was the the only brewery in NYC when it opened in 1984 though "many decades" should be changed to over a decade. New York Times – April 16 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E5D91438F935A25757C0A962948260 New York Times –Nov 9 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDD1139F93AA35752C1A962948260 New York Times – Feb 22 1985 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DC1239F931A15751C0A963948260 Hope this helps WittymWittym 22:25, 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 per WP:SNOW as OR and unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roomless Room[edit]

Apparent hoax, neologism or Original Research; no Ghits. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Pure original research. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly original research. It is impossible to verify this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above.TheRingess (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more usually called an "unfinished area" or simply a "map bug" (neither has an article, but together could be a basis for one). --Dhartung | Talk
Delete per nomination and all of the above. dr.alf 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. creator also appears to be vandal: see here for recent edit. Eliz81 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find a couple of ghits, but they are passing mentions and don't establish notability.--Fabrictramp 22:28, 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} 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth[edit]

Free game, by non-notable company. Not finished, and unlikely to be any time soon. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was removed without addressing concerns. Drat (Talk) 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks more like an advert than an article. Number 5 7 09:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was not created or written by the team. The team can produce copies of print articles about the game from leading UK PC magazines to confirm it's not just an "internet" hype. This is the most hyped Indiana Jones fan-game to date. Wikipedia is recieving at least 10 hits to this page a day (I've been watching) & that is leading to more users at the FoY website. "Advert" is a strong word for something that's non-profit. Keep this page and the FoY team are likely to donate to Wikipedia. This fan-game is also the only project to attempt to bring back Doug Lee as a voice actor for Indiana Jones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.231.122 (talk • contribs)
- I don't find your FoY team are likely to donate to Wikipedia argument particularly convincing. In fact, I'm a bit impressed you had the cojones to post it. Anyway, delete. Unfinished game, smells of an advertisement. Cap'n Walker 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the article very interesting and there should be space on wikipedia for fan produced video games as well. 62.214.211.233 15:37, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screen 7[edit]

Freeware game company. No independent, reliable sources. No references of any sort to back up claims of notability. Only game mentioned is still unfinished. Drat (Talk) 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. --Eyrian 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people at Wikipedia actually gave a clear indication of what "noteable" sources are then this page could be backed up thoroughly. Instruction pages are too technical & hard to understand. Screen 7 has featured in PC gaming magazines, and there are more than 20 articles on the internet relating to music made by Screen 7. This is also an important page because it's the only reference to the original Screen 7 company who made several games including Jaws & High Steel. Also, we have many completed games, including, Nelly Cootalot, The Journey Home & associated with Adventures of Fatman, Trilby's Notes & 6 Days A Sacrifice (Find Chzo Myths on Wikipedia).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.231.122 (talk • contribs)

You will find an explanation of notability here, and an explanation of what constitutes a reliable source here. Also, since you seem to be part of the company ("we"), please read this.--Eyrian 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:N, and apparently WP:COI (not that COI is explicitly a deletion criteria). -- MarcoTolo 01:06, 22 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. ~ Wikihermit 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 Airplay number-one hits of 1997 (USA)[edit]

Reason for nomination. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. SamBC 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that I bring this up as a test case for the similar pages for other years. SamBC 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge with airplay article. Not all 100 hits just like 10 or something though. -Icewedge 02:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete billboard.com offers history charts for a fee at their site...I dont think wikipedia should be offering this information for free (I'm assuming billboard has the copyrights to this list). Corpx 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why 1997 is bad. We have lists for all of that decade. See List_of_number-one_Hot_100_Airplay_hits. As an aside, I've found lists like that useful. Guroadrunner 11:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, consider this a test case for the other articles like this for other years; 1997 isn't being 'singled out'. And remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered an acceptable argument. SamBC 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless it's true that this is a copyright violation, which does seem possible). In my opinion, the most popular songs on the radio in a given year is notable and encyclopedic. Propaniac 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless it's a copyvio. Oyster guitarist 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic list of chart toppers. I hate to argue that other crap exists, but this list is no less notable than, say, 1997 in country music, which features all of the Hot Country Songs number-one singles and other major hits. I don't see any copyryight violations here at this list or any other Hot 100 Airplay lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:18, 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 10:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Commandos[edit]

None of the sources establish notability of the Cheat Commandos independently of Homestar Runner; notability is not inherited. The main HSR article confers upon the Cheat Commandos the extent of coverage they need on Wikipedia, given their level of notability. In short, this violates Wikipedia's notability and indiscriminate information policies. bwowen ^talk^•^contribs 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge OR Redirect to Homestar Runner as a plausible search term, anchoring if deemd desirable. -- saberwyn 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homestar Runner. Carom 18:54, 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 Merge with Barney & Friends cast. Also merged the other ones, per CambridgeBayWeather. --Deskana (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riff (dinosaur)[edit]

Non-notable character, could simply be merged into the Barney & Friends article. RandomOrca2 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barney article as a condensed version of this article. Guroadrunner 11:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect but to Barney & Friends cast instead. Then Baby Bop, B.J. (dinosaur) and Barney (character) could all follow. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barney & Friends, then rd. Giggy _U^CP 00:04, 23 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 combat air patrol, which fits better than air superiority. Daniel Case 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter cover[edit]

One line dictionary definition. Clarityfiend 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air superiority? Though that article itself isn't great at the moment either. Nick mallory 01:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Combat air patrol? Clarityfiend 02:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, although the CAP article is all about the USAF rather than any exploration of the wider meaning of the term. What it all needs is one comprehensive article perhaps? Nick mallory 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, CAP is not a term used exclusively by the USAF. Clarityfiend 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of that fact, but if you look at the Combat air patrol article on Wikipedia it's all about the USAF at the moment e.g. all the "CAP types" and doesn't discuss any other air forces. Nick mallory 09:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then that article should be fixed. (The work never ends...) Clarityfiend 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete and redirect Wikipedia is not a dictionary. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Oyster guitarist 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to air superiority. Wl219 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. Bearian 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:52, 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. An interesting idea better executed than you might expect, as Mandsford notes, but ultimately not the sort of thing Wikipedia is for. Daniel Case 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with numbers in their name[edit]

WP:NOT lists of loosely associated topics. Indiscriminate criteria for a list, and includes places with no actual connection (anything from Eightmile Island to a bus stop in Pakistan). This is just as loosely connected as a list of places with colors in their name would be, or any other arbitrarily chosen theme. Saikokira 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure trivia and WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete umm, yeah, loosely associated alright. Resolute 04:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of barely associated topics. Calgary 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as loose list and trivia. Useight 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was prepared to hate this list, expecting nothing more than a list of American and British podunks like Three Mile Island and Thousand Oaks. However, the author traces the origins of places all over the world, so that Cuatro Caminos, Four Corners, Kiryat Arba, Melipilla, Quattro Castella, Quatre-Champs, Vierkirchen, and Y Ffor are all together. This one does need a lot of paring down, needs a lot of work, the title sounds like a category on Jeopardy... but I see an encyclopedic value in articles that have the etymology of names. I remember Mario Pei wrote about a British location called "Torpenhow Hill" -- all four syllables were a word for hill, so it was, as he said, Hillhillhill Hill. Anyway, I encourage the author to voluntarily take this down and move it to a User page, work on it, figure a way this might go. Save it to your hard drive, look for other articles about place name origins, since this may be an "orphaned" article. Mandsford 11:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A more precise translation of Torpenhow, I think, would be Peak-head-height. —Tamfang 19:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless random coincidence. Golfcam 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningless, trivial, random association. Hut 8.5 14:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of loosely associated topics. Same kind of reasoning behind the "List of songs with X in the title" type discussions. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of loosely associated topics. Oyster guitarist 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list, will likely never be complete. It would come to hundreds of printed pages if it were even 10% complete. Blueboy 96 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA--JForget 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it's the only possible place where any list could include both Two Harbors, Minnesota and Three Cocks, Wales. They forgot Nine Mile Creek in Bloomington, Minnesota, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:44, 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 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Angel's Levitation[edit]

This article is very casual in tone, and is a how-to-guide. This trick is arbitrary (we can't have a list of all CA's tricks). The article is completely unsourced, and is entirely original research. The YouTube link is probably a copyvio, the external link is spam. the_undertow ^talk 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If this one passes AFD, then others in the category Magic Tricks should be nomitated as well as the tone in each of them is the same. Also, since the magician's code forbids sharing magic secrets, perhaps Wikipedia should respect that as well. It's a stretch, but I still think it's rooted in tradition and could be respected. --Renrenren 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primarily per NOT#HOWTO - also casual and unencyclopedic —Travis ^talk 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also based on WP:NOT#HOWTO - Not the place for these explanations Corpx 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT#HOWTO also original research. Oyster guitarist 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a magic tricks how-to guide. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One trick on one basic-cable magic show? This is not in any way notable, even if it did not have the other problems noted above. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Just another quick note. I see this will quite likely be deleted. If so, the other 4 levitations listed on this page should probably also go through an AFD. --Renrenren 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a HOWTO, as it doesn't actually provide anything like enough information to perform the trick. It does, however, explain how a notable trick that has been broadcast on TV and sold on DVDs was performed to the satisfaction of a casual viewer. I see no reason to delete it. Notability of the trick established by these links: [59] [60] [61] and the "original research" can probably be sourced with a reference to Angel's own DVD. JulesH 18:03, 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase[edit]

Deleted once via prod alread; prod template removed by creator this time around so its coming here. Does not show any verifiable sources that would meet WP:WEB, outside of some niche coverage when bought by Global Gaming League. Shell ^babelfish 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of grandiose-sounding claims (which aren't all that impressive to begin with) unsupported by by anything resembling actual reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB easily. Giggy _U^CP 00:01, 23 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 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Blues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete: amateur sports club whose only claim to "notability" appears to be winning no matches. Multiply deleted in the past. Pak21 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is a part of a league, I would say either this one is notable, or the entire Ontario Australian Football League should be non-notable. Greswik 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete League might be notible (and should be part of it's own AfD if that that's in dispute) but the team is not. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable team there only notablity is losing. Oyster guitarist 19:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the original AfD, this is probably a speedy: since it's listed here, I'd say it fails WP:N (on many, many levels), WP:RS. The notability of Ontario Australian Football League is another issue. -- MarcoTolo 02:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for reference, speedy deletion was declined --Pak21 07:46, 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 keep. ~ Wikihermit 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stock.xchng[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable Spam article lacking in verifiable sources. Seems also to be a small part of a larger problem on the project→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Jupitermedia_Corporation_.28Jupiterimages.29 Hu12 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the article could use some improvement and sources but this seems to be a well known site and it has an Alexa rank and Google page rank that can't be argued with. StuffOfInterest 12:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, then Keep Article should remain but be wikified with sources. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 13:57, 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, an indiscriminate list that is better referenced outside of WP --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B[edit]

WP:NOT#INFO, causes problems for many users due to its size (266kb) Will ^(talk) 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is part of greater series of articles/lists on unicode characters. If the only reason to delete is article size, split is the answer. Wl219 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or move to somewhere outside of wikipedia) - as it's just a huge unlinked list of characters it seems to break the IINFO rule, although I suppose having a unicode reference might be useful to some people (although for those without estoric fonts the Unicode people's own PDFs at http://www.unicode.org/charts/ are probably more useful), could it be moved to Wikisource or something? FredOrAlive 18:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was originally a subpage of List of Unicode characters, but someone moved it outside. While I don't think it should be an independent article either, merging it into the main article would cause slowdown or crash problems on older computers. The main article, by the way, is subject to a merge discussion (which is more of a deletion discussion, since the information will be gone according to the merge discussion) - if the decision is to get rid of the main article, all the (former) subpages can go too (although I'd like to have a notice so I can backup the articles - they could prove useful for the german List of Unicode characters) -- Prince Kassad 20:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete link to it outside of wiki if there's something relevant on it (per FredOrAlive) Giggy _U^CP 00:02, 23 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} 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Translation Suite[edit]

Product of MultiLing Corporation, whose article was just deleted. Came across this link and article and don't see any more notability claimed or proved than was for the software. Given that creator User:Provotrumpet seemed to be interested in Wikipedia solely as a promotional tool, I don't see that information likely as being added. Daniel Case 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the entry asserts that computer-aided translation is notable, the article fails to provide a rationale for why this particular software package is notable. Fails the product section of WP:CORP. -- MarcoTolo 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as 100% unsourced. Bearian 01:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THe article explained how the software works, but did not demonstrate why it's notable. Also, I can't find any reliable sources of the subject in the search engine, only a couple of independent wiki pages. Since the corporation itself has been deleted, this page should be deleted too, since it has a far too narrow scope.--Kylohk 12:51, 22 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} 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Reason (webcomic)[edit]

Apparently non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, even saying that the comic's "quiet self-launch" "went largely unnoticed." A Google search for the name of the comic and the name of either of its authors returns 263 unique hits, rather low for something web-based, and a very large number appear to be irrelevant. Searching for the name of the comic with BOTH the names of its creators returns only Wikipedia. Its Alexa rank is under 5 million. Elmer Clark 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Bearian 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having tried the search engine myself, it is almost impossible to find any reliable sources (let alone nontrivial ones) mentioning it. In fact, there are many cases where only 1 website really mentions the webcomic, and that's the site of the comic itself. With such a low profile, it's unlikely to meet any of the other 2 criteria of WP:WEB.--Kylohk 11:10, 22 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} 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. Delete. Bryson 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly plot summary with no assertion of real-world notability. Almost none of these entries have any particular significance, even in the books/games; they're window dressing so that the authors can say "Slayn & Korpil made the Y-wing" rather than "a company made a Y-wing" -- but, really, it's just background detail. Yes, these things enrich the fictional EU, but they rarely have large significance in the pages/game levels they appear on, let alone outside in the real world. There are a few exceptions -- e.g. Kuat Drive Yards, which plays an important plot point in some books -- and even that article may be on its way to AfD. Additionally, there are very few sources. I'm sympathetic to User:Deckiller's comment on the previous AfD that it's best to have this dam rather than 100 individual articles and stubs with this info -- but, I disagree, and would rather delete this and then delete whatever assorted individual company articles crop up. More tedious, but ultimately thins out the weak material. --EEMeltonIV 07:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions.
Delete Surprisingly few people have weighed in on this, considering the popularity of the Star Wars universe AND the obvious hard work performed on this article by the author. Nevertheless, I agree with deletion because all of this appears to be drawn from the novels that are spinoffs from the films. Although the "lack of real world notability" might seem, at first, to be a bizarre comment about entities that are not real, I agree with Melton that these are minutiae that would be unknown even to most Star Wars fans. Maybe the author can publish a Star Wars Yellow Pages, but Wikipedia has its limits. Mandsford 00:27, 22 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} 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars organizations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. It is also un-referenced and suggests it fails WP:NOR. Delete.--Bryson 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions.

Weak delete I could see how this article could be of use to some people, but it seems to be beyond the understanding of some folks that this is a fictional topic. The article is also so long and so meandering, it fails to have much use to the public at large, which is the whole point of encyclopedic articles. This article needs to go unless someone's willing to spend a year or so cleaning it up.71.76.220.91 04:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason as deletion for Star Wars companies. There's a distinction between the superpopular films and the marginally popular novels that are a spinoff of the Star Wars universe, and this info seems to be drawn straight from the novels. Minor organizations listed in minor works are of minor interest. If it's not worthy of its own Star Wars book, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mandsford 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a random list of in-universe trivia. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 22 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.