Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

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 keep - AfD has run its course, and the only person who said delete was the nom. Could really do with a rewrite though. Non admin closure (not that it makes a difference). Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simko Shikak[edit]

The article lacks enough sources, and the person doesn't seem notable enough to have a separate article. It looks more like like a political editorial promoting this fringe person, rather than an encyclopedic entry. A Google search [1] only generates 25 results, mostly from political forums. So, either the article should be expanded with neutral sources asserting the notability of this person, and then re-written in a neutral manner or deleted. --Mardavich 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if expanded and written in neutral manner. Harlowraman 05:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking for information on a early 20th century political figure in google will of course get only the modern controversial use made of the events. A clearly important historical figure, and there will clearly be more sources--in print. DGG (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad nomination. Simko is considered as a great Kurdish hero. Brusk u Trishka 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment I've done some further research in other languages, and Simko Shikak was merely a Kurdish warlord who is notorious for massacring Assyrians, but the article gives the impression that this person was the "president" of some imaginary republic that never existed and does not mention anything about the massacre of Assyrians at his hand. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be re-written to address these serious inaccuracy and POV problems. --Mardavich 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simko the Great, saved our race from an evil plot of foreigners to annihilate Kurds. He bravely and rightfully killed a lot of soldiers of foreigners who today label themselves as Iranians, Although that term is only 100 years old and that is another story :)

Brusk, you are something else, really. Chaldean 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs more sourcing and cleanup, but as DGG points out sources are far more likely to be in print than electronic form. Edward321 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He set up a Kurdish republic in 1923, and this has been reported by New York Times and Washington Post. see here [2],[3]. He is also mentioned numerous times in scholarly articles about Kurdish history, see here [4]. More English sources will be added soon. Also note that on books.google.com, Simko get 123 hits[5].Heja Helweda 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted or not but what I will say is that the article is horribly written and is filled with terminology inappropriate to an "encyclopedia". If you're going to keep it, someone with at least some command of the English language should spend the time to fix it. Otherwise get rid of it, as it'd be one less badly written article to have to come across. IrantoIran 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell's prime number theorem[edit]

Named "theorem" with zero Google hits and zero sources. Violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N. Creator removed prod without giving a requested source [6], and concedes being unable to prove it's by Bell.[7] As explained at Talk:Bell's prime number theorem, the result is a trivial consequence (at least for a mathematician) of p²-1 = (p-1)×(p+1), so my OR concern is mainly about the name and claim it's by Bell. No known source mentions this result, and it seems questionable to call it a theorem (a word usually used about harder things). Author has mentioned possibility of rename. This might fix the OR and V problems, but it's still non-notable. It appears a trivial and uninteresting observation that is not worth merging anywhere. A mathematician could make scores of similar observations about divisibility properties of specific polynomials. PrimeHunter 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- total hoax and WP:OR. My math skills aren't that advanced, so I'm trusting the nom's skills. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, out of my curiosity, I decided to verify what he says, although it is just pure common sense at times. A prime number p greater than 3 must be odd and have a least significant digit of either 1, 3, 7 or 9. It definitely is not divisible by 3. p-1, p and p+1 span a range of 3 numbers, so either p-1 or p+1 must be divisible by 3. At the same time, both p-1 and p+1 are even, and since their difference is 2, one of them must be divisible by 4 as well. So, multiplying both of them together would give something that is divisible by both 8 and 3, and hence p² - 1 is divisible by 24. There you go.--Kylohk 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Excellent! Now please proof read Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem (just kidding). PrimeHunter 01:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true that there are no search results for this theorem. It may or may not be true, but if no other academic sources mention it, it's likely to be OR, and not suitable for wikipedia. Better wait until at least 1 textbook mention his "theorem".--Kylohk 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost trivial factoid about prime numbers which was most likely known way before Bell even learned to read. It may still be that somebody, somewhere decided to name this factoid Bell's prime number theorem but from a mathematical standpoint, that somebody was misguided and I don't believe anyone has followed suit. Pascal.Tesson 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone agrees that this theorem is true. PrimeHunter, an expert in prime numbers, believes that it is trivial for him (though his proof about p>=17 is scarcely convincing) but it is original researchto deduce that it is trivial for others, and despite the supposed triviality he did not know the result already. If it is not by Bell, the article could be renamed, but not deleted. As for original research, it cannot be both trivially, obviously true and a dubious piece of original research.--Bedivere 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not for everything that is true. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability. This result sounds like something that might be asked as an easy exercise to students. A harder exercise might be: Prove "PrimeHunter's prime number observation": If p is a prime above 61, then (p⁶⁰-1)/6814407600 is a composite integer. That doesn't mean we should create PrimeHunter's prime number observation. PrimeHunter 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Bedivere, we really need the answer to this question: Have you seen some book or scholarly article that either called this something like "Bell's prime number theorem" or attributed it to Eric Temple Bell? If so, which book or journal? Tell us enough so that we can go to the library and find it. Michael Hardy 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if textbook uses appear. If this is the way its taught to students, it should have an article.DGG (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem being that there isn't a single reference supporting this use. The prime number theorem is a deep result in number theory and no scholar would be foolish enough to name anything "X's prime number theorem" when it has nothing to do with the distribution of primes. I have 4 number theory textbooks right here in my office, none of which support this terminology. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The connection with Bell is not verifiable, and the result itself is too trivial (or not notable, in Wikipedia-speak) to have an article. The article should be kept if the theorem is stated as an important result in books or articles, but I doubt that will be the case. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May be integrated at some point. Gregbard 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at most, put to a page where trivial fact about prime numbers are stated). Jakob.scholbach 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources to connect this theorem with Eric Bell, and I believe the claims made above that the result is not notable. EdJohnston 01:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Merge With a simple google search I found these: [8] [9] [10] and this slight twist of subtracting the square of two primes:[11] (which has been known since at least 1878: [12]), so the zero google hits in the nom is incorrect. Also deleting every math topic not interesting to a mathematician is ridiculous--WP is for everybody. Agree that attributing it to Bell is unsupportable, so a move with history and delete the redirect would be appropriate. Dhaluza 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not show notability; it's just an isolated fact. For instance, the last but one link, which has the generalization that the difference between the squares of two numbers is divisible by 24, mentions "This is an observation i made one night while trying to go to sleep". Not every verifiable fact belongs in Wikipedia. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Good find. Zero Google hits referred to the alleged name. None of your links mention Bell and none of them call it a theorem. They don't mention that (p²-1)/24 is composite for large p. And prime numbers is mathematically a red herring: The divisibility by 24 holds for any integer p that is not divisible by 2 or 3. The observation about 24 dividing p²-1 for prime p > 3 has been mentioned by some sources but it appears unnamed (a sign that it's not important) and I don't see what it could be moved to. I don't think the mentioned sources are enough for own article per WP:N, and there is not enough material for a meaningful article. A merge would leave a redirect on an apparently non-existing name, and there is no edit history that matters since a source can be quoted directly for the single line that remains if the unsourced part is removed. If references giving more significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are not found, then I think the one-line observation could be added to an existing article, either Prime number#Properties of primes or Square number#Properties. Bedivere can add it if he/she wants the edit. PrimeHunter 03:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could be meged to 24 (number) and/or Prime number for example. I agree that a redirect from this name is problematic, but I don't know what else to do. We could move this to 24 mystery per the first web page. This is also a one-source name, but at least it does not involve a person. I disagree that the lack of a name makes it unimportant. There are also textbook problem references if you take the search to Google Books. Dhaluza 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless someone comes up with a reliable sources attributing this as a theorem to ETB. --Lambiam 05:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eric Temple Bell. I have read one of his non-fiction books (re: Mathematicians). So it seems to fit there in his bio. Ghits are not perfect. Possibly needs more expert attention. Bearian 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are you saying you have seen this in a book by Bell? It's true that GHits are not perfect, and it's possible but currently unverified that Bell has ever mentioned this observation. Dhaluza found multiple mentions of the result and none of them mention Bell (one was from before his birth). PrimeHunter 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I see two possibilities. Either this was never claimed by Bell as a theorem of his in which case it has no business in his article or Bell did claim this as his. In which case he was somewhat of a clown since this cute factoid is trivial and has nothing to do with primes as noted above. Either way, this has no business in his article. Pascal.Tesson 20:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prime number and, as a second idea, into Eric Temple Bell The first one makes sense, the second one can be corrected by editing if someone acquainted with Bell's works knows that it's not his original idea. Mandsford 00:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far two commenters have wanted this to be merged into Eric Temple Bell. But one reason for this AfD is that there is no evidence connecting this theorem to Bell, so his article is not an appropriate merge target. EdJohnston 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite several requests, there is no source that actually connects this "theorem" to ETB. Without a verification of this supposed connection, all that remains is a trivial and non-notable factoid about numbers that are co-prime to 24. Gandalf61 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation if someone can show that they meet WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Humbleweeds[edit]

Non notable band from Northern Ireland that fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Myspace-based band without significant coverage in third party sources. The redirects to the page of band member names should also be deleted. Appears to violate WP:BLP with mention of ex-band members. Non-encyclopedic content that is unsalvageable without some additional references. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:V. BLP issues could be fixed if notable, but if not notable best solved by eliminating the article until notability is achieved. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had actually heard of them and was going to say keep until I read the article. No references or external links, and a fairly immature to make matters worse. Any verifiable source of information for former members substance abuse or is that just slandar? Irishjp 12:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the improvements made during the debate are what differs it from the nom, and it's not keep-worthy per consensus. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrie D'Rozario Murphy[edit]

Delete was speedied before with less meat on it; now re-created, does a single mention in the "who's news" section of the WSJ confer notability? The article as written seems a little spammy, but regardless, this seems like a typical nn ad agency. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, three reliable sources is not how you presented this article. They won the $100 million United Airlines account despite being a startup, which is pretty much unheard of in the advertising business. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep., the WSJ is the newspaper of record in the field, & there's 2 other good refs. DGG (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WSJ actually doesn't cover advertising all that well (It's all that fuzzy human factors stuff that gets in the way of parsing 10-Qs.), as the limited coverage shows. The NYT ran a full story, the AdWeek story is from one of the two "of record" publications for the industry (Advertising Age being the other; their story isn't free), and the Chicago Sun-Times is from the city where the United Airlines headquarters is located, so they cover everything the airline does. Crain's also had a story. In any case, well beyond the basic requirements of WP:CORP.--Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the addition of the New York Times the article now has 5 credible sources. Dmdaily10 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent improvements to cites by Dhartung et al. Bearian 19:55, 31 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 - notable and verifiable according to consensus. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Tesselschade Visscher[edit]

Non-notable poet, with only digital versions of his poems as references, with very few other sources on the web. Jmlk 1 7 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable character of the Dutch Golden Age and the Muiderkring. I added a ref to the small bio at the Rijksmuseum, but there are plenty of Dutch references (eg here is an excellent one) and I can find a Britannica one when the site's up tomorrow. By the way, she's a she. Gordonofcartoon 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of information on the web about her and she's clearly notable. Just because a Dutch poet who lived from 1594-1649 hasn't appeared on Letterman is no reason for deletion. I wonder how closely the nominator actually read the article as it clearly states that the poet was a woman. Nick mallory 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep Also notable as an engraver, not that that is yet covered. I agree with Nick m above. Johnbod 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and sourced, just a stub that needs more content. Bearian 19:57, 31 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 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Mall at Ithaca[edit]

Violates WP:NOT#DIR, almost entirely a list of stores in the mall. "Pyramid Mall Ithaca" (the mall's actual name, no "at") returns relatively few Google hits, with no reliable sources to be seen, so article fails WP:RS and WP:V too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot only does it violate WP:NOT, the mall itself isn't very notable, since the search engine results don't give any non-trivial reliable sources.--Kylohk 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only directory information. DGG (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fits the definition of a non-notable mall. I've been there, its very run of the mill Rackabello 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And now that I read it again, I think its speedy criteria. Not only is it not notable, no assertion of notability, valid or otherwise is made Rackabello 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks 09:18, 30 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. --Core desat 06:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Commons[edit]

Non-notable shopping plaza. Page has been tagged for cleanup since March with no improvement. Consists almost entirely of a store listing, violating WP:NOT#DIR. Also fails WP:RS and WP:V (be warned: there're about 48 million apartment complexes and subdivisions with the same name). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOT Gorkymalorki 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, listcruft of red links and past tenants. Bearian 19:59, 31 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 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Square Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, several bits of WP:OR within ("Many mistook it as related to nearby Westfield, Mass."). No noteworthy GHits in a search, so it also fails WP:RS and WP:V Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this one has at least some information about significant changes in ownership, but its unsourced. Delete unless RSs can be found. DGG (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried, unsuccessfully, to find sources, and that's why this is at AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if sources are found, I'm not sure how change of ownership makes it notable. Oli Filth 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, A7. Having said that - in case someone simply states for some reason it's not a valid candidate for speedy deletion because it's not exactly "a company" - the article makes no effort to assert WP:N so I cannot see how the subject meets WP:N. Unsourced, so WP:NOR/ WP:RS.Ga rr ie 21:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oli Filth 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
declined to speedy it's here, let it be discussed. If nothing else, the article asserts notable tenants. this is not enough to justify a keep, but I consider it enough to prevent a speedy. Better to have it closed in another 2 or 3 days if nobody does find sources. DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dunlop[edit]

Person of borderline notability, who has attracted a lot of poorly-sourced controversy. The current article on Hitz Radio adequately covers the subject already, and there is nothing notable about Dunlop that cannot be discussed there. Delete. JulesH 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or redirect to Hitz Radio like original page did. Also, seems that several sock puppets were used to create both the article and the discussion. Rysin3 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This guy is only "famous" in his local area for lying and making false claims, as he does not have 40 employee's and does not have 80.000 slots. If you would look around the internet for his (unlicensed) radio station, you would mostly find complaints from people who feel that it's not ok to claim things that aren't even near the truth. Sadly some papers believed him and gave him credit for his lies. I suggest you check out the [wikia article] on him. Wouttonio 17:29, 31 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 back to Prime quadruplet for now. Editors are welcome to instead move the information to prime k-tuple per talk page discussion - the AfD merely determined that the information should be kept. Non admin closure. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime quintuplet[edit]

Trivia. Is this useful enough for an article?? Georgia guy 21:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to prime quadruplet where it was copied from [13], or to prime k-tuple. Prime quintuplets (sometimes called prime 5-tuplets) are mentioned in sources in connection with other prime tuplets, for example [14] at MathWorld, [15], [16] and [17] at The Prime Pages, the 10 largest known at [18] (normal site currently down due to computer problems), [19] in Mathematics of Computation, [20] and [21] in OEIS. I think definition and records are also listed in Paulo Ribenboim books. Prime quintuplets are notable enough to mention in broader articles, but not enough for their own article. PrimeHunter 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with everything Primehunter has said. Why this artificial separation between 4 and the larger integers? Even the first sentence, defining prime quintuplets, is almost impossible to read because prime quadruplets have not been discussed or wikilinked. WP is not a scrap book. Mathsci 07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or else merge back. CRGreathouse t | c) 01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable concept. If you merge back, you'll still need a redirect, so what's the gain in having a redirect rather than a short article?--Bedivere 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bedivere. Iotha 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to prime k-tuple. (I think merging to prime quadruplet could be very confusing). I'm willing to change my mind if someone shows me two or more math journal papers demonstrably concerning themselves specifically with prime quintuplets (e.g., if the title says "quintuplets" rather than "var-tuplets." PrimeFan 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every sentence in the article is pretty trivial or subsumed in the fact that right now it's not known whether there are infintely many prime twins Jakob.scholbach 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to prime k-tuple but don't delete. Though trivial to me, this sort of thing is nevertheless of interest to some mathematicians. Is it less interesting than prime twins? Certainly. But we haven't yet seen a valid argument to delete this. --JayHenry 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to prime k-tuple per PrimeHunter & PrimeFan. Anton Mravcek 00:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someday Never[edit]

Band of doubtful notability; article does not include anything to satisfy WP:MUSIC and I couldn't find anything more substantial online. They have had local press coverage and have won an award, but not, so far as I can tell, a significant one. CIreland 21:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update by nom. Just noticed they were already deleted by AFD but it was some time ago. And the article has had several contributors since re-creation. CIreland 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC at this point. Their label doesn't appear to be notable, and while they discuss touring, it doesn't look to have reached the "national" level suggested. Reliable sources aren't turning up for me at this point; there appear to be some local pieces, but it doesn't look like the band has moved any closer since the last time. Plus, all the article is at this point is cut-and-pastes from the Amazon writeups of its two albums and a third interview piece, so it's copyvio anyhow. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Fox. dissolve ^talk 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Vanous[edit]

Not an especially notable individual, Only claim to notability seems to be some small MMORPG or working for microsoft, Possibly created by the person who is the subject of the article. Google searches yield minimal reliable sources as well. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by Vanous so most likely a WP:COI. Non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While George Vanous is no Scott Isaacs, he has built notable sites like the click-less gallery and has engineered declarative-syntax AJAX framweworks in uncommon ways. Vanous 22:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:BIO and other notability guidelines. Possible G11 speedy for the number of external links. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like TenPoundHammer said it fails WP:BIO. It's completely unsourced and on top of all that, like Irishguy says it looks like it was created in breach of WP:COI--Cailil ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Sourcing is weak (the subject gets minimal return on searches), the conflict of interest is concerning. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Interesting work, no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Obvious autobiography, but not by itself, the only reason to delete. Violates WP:N and WP:V. Bearian 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Kiss (video)[edit]

Non notable...Video? I googled it and can't seem to find many sources, especially reliable ones. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable video, fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A laser disc only released in Japan?! Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Town East Mall[edit]

Sub-stub mall article about a non-notable mall in Texas, gives hardly any context. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that is notable about one generic mall with no notability out of thousands. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --NeilN 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand Looking at the site [22] and its store directory, the mall has well over 100 stores, didn't get the exact count but probably around the 125-150 range. So it is a significant mall in the area that's for sure--JForget 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm well aware of the mall's size; it's been established before that size does not equal inherited notability for a mall. I have tried to expand this page, but there's just nothing to add from any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i think its been accepted that these articles need to be more that a store directory--and that the lists of stores are not encyclopedic contentDGG (talk) 06:17, 30 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. --Core desat 06:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Mothma (starship)[edit]

Imaginary starship with no real-world notability. While significant in the Star Wars universe, it has no significance in the real world. User:Kappa removed a prod, citing in the edit summary that it is a "top-importance star wars article", but I don't see any particular evidence of that. EEMeltonIV 21:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo real world notability at all. Could re direct to something but is good to get consensus here to the fact that it does not need an article of its own.Obina 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per merged article being deleted anyway. — Deckill er 01:00, 30 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(nomination withdrawn) Peacent 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water export[edit]

This isn't an article--this is an essay, and a highly POV one at that. Blueboy 96 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as an essay, violation of WP:NPOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An essay not an article. Obina 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Pull the plug per nom. --Targeman 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, greatly improved by Bláthnaid. Good work. --Targeman 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article to be written on this subject but I can't find it in this essay. --Stormbay 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've rewritten the article. I think it's up to scratch now. <crystal ball>If Wikipedia is around in 2050, this will be one of the most edit-warred articles on it, unfortunately. --Bláthnaid 14:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Sterling job. Consider my nomination withdrawn. Blueboy96 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Nice job! There's the article!--Stormbay 18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I ask that those editors who are involved with the organisation please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline to determine if and how they should contribute to the article. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIPTA[edit]

No sources, questionable notability. ~~Possibly violates WP:NOR~~ Rackabello 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete by our notability standards, it's not quite good enough, but there are 600 helpful Google hits for anyone who wishes to undertake a rescue mission. It's basically a small academic department with a unique purpose. Shalom ^Hello 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I did not think there will be enough sources, but the various activities of the society have been cited about 120 times in Google Scholar .DGG (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legit WP:CORP; referenced by ACM. --Aarktica 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Company seems to pass WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" The society is quite active. It has organized several conferences and also summer schools for PhD students. Thomas Augustin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.246.7.157 (talk • contribs).

Keep: as indicated, the society is active and is also known in the (narrow but arguably valuable) area of automated reasoning, statistics, decision making; among its sponsors is the Int. Journal on Approximate Reasoning, a publication by Elsevier. Fabio G. Cozman (note: I am a member of the society, and have added a few changes to the pages already).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.107.99.45 (talk • contribs).

Keep: SIPTA held its fifth ISIPTA conference in July (2007), at Charles University in Prague. The refereed proceedings for all five conferences are available on-line at the Society's homepage. This is an active research/teaching organization. Teddy Seidenfeld (Secretary for SIPTA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teddy Seidenfeld (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Mall[edit]

Overly redlinked page on a non-notable mall that's been torn down for a strip mall. Fails WP:RS and WP:V for lack of sources; possibly fails WP:NOT#DIR as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this and every other mall article that doesn't assert notabilityRackabello 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of the importance of the subject. It is clearly another mall; bigger than some; smaller than others. --Stormbay 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being non-notable per nom, Butseriouslyfolks, and Stormbay. Just another upstate NY mall. I can not see how it can be asserted or verified as being notable. However, contra Rackabello, there are notable malls east and west of Utica. Bearian 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga Mall[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall in Saratoga Springs, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Almost completely lacking in wikilinks, tagged for notability since April with no improvements. Also seems to have a bit of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another A7 Rackabello 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N (notability not shown) and WP:V (no asserted facts are cited to reliable sources). -- But|seriously|folks 09:18, 30 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 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmount Fair[edit]

Yet another non-notable mall. Nothing but a list of stores, clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Has been tagged for notability since May with no improvement. No sources, thus failing WP:RS and WP:V too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Rackabello 06:42, 30 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. --Core desat 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. Ahmed Quraishi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M. Ahmed Quraishi (2nd nomination)

I originally nominated this about ten months ago, as part of a group AfD for Soni Motors Thailand, Auto Retailing History in Asia, Motor Walah, M. Ahmed Quraishi, and Quraishi Motors (link here). I felt the final decision to keep this page a little odd given the overwhelming consensus, and since then there's been little change. Last month, an SPA called User:Basit Quraishi (WP:COI, anyone?) made a minor "expansion", but there's still no demonstration of notability, and no external sources cited. "Ahmed Quraishi" gets barely 1,000 Ghits despite a Kuwaiti journalist owning the ahmedquraishi.com domain, and I get zilch in the Google News archives. I also get nothing for "M. Ahmed Quraishi" outside WP and its mirrors. Also, please note that the one external link, to Historical info on M. Ahmed Quraishi, is hosted by the Soni Group, and specifically mentions "Please read about him in Wikipedia encylopedia" with a link to this article. --DeLarge 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless it can be sourced, verified and rewritten, it needs to go. There is no way to know if the article is accurate because there are Zero sources. There are major WP:MOS issues since there is no context to the article's discussion of M. Ahmed Quraishi. I really can't see why is was kept in the previous AFD--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First auto importer in India, or "Asia outside Japan" even, would be notable if verifiable, but given we can only find subject-connected sources, this fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 10:19, 30 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. --Core desat 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon Run Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in New York State. Appears to have had plenty of turnover as anchor stores go, but that still doesn't make it notable. Fails WP:RS and WP:V (and maybe even WP:OR as far as what constitutes an anchor store). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was created by User:Danfifepsu, an indefinitely blocked user (he wasn't blocked at the time). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tagged as A7 (non-notable group/establishment/whatever). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've declined the speedy. I've seen malls of this size get kept at AFD, so I think it needs a full discussion. As to the creator being a banned user, we have that to allow us to quickly delete, say, an RFC that a sockpuppet creates against an old enemy. We don't need to apply it if they make legitimate article contributions that we may want to keep.--Chaser - T 05:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as not very notable outside of Jefferson county - Fort Drum, New York area. Can we find cites? Bearian 20:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear notable. North America is covered by malls of all sizes and shapes that can barely be distinguished one from another except by the slightly different mix of stores. A mall needs a hook to be notable.--Stormbay 00:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Carlossuarez46, non-admin closure by... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Lights Plaza[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Syracuse. Very little context, tagged as an orphaned article lacking importance since April. Fails WP:RS by a long shot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, doesn't even try to assert notability Rackabello 20:39, 29 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 Has been speedy deleted Pascal.Tesson 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Country Mall[edit]

Non-notable shopping mall in Michigan. Only sources are official website, mall owner's website, plus Geocities and Angelfire (my own Angelfire site, no less -- and no, I didn't put the link there myself). A Google search turns up nothing reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Violates WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM Rackabello 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're fast. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snatch the pebble from my... Clarityfiend 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raghav Ranganathan[edit]

This is about an Indian Kollywood actor, I'm not quite convinced of notability. Possibly fails WP:BIO, he's described in the article as an "up and coming actor" and the roles he's had seem to be minor and several are still in production. None of his releases are in English, raising the question as to the appropriateness for the English Wikipedia verses the Tamil Wiki, it seems like most of his impact (if any) has been to Tamil speaking Indians. There are also issues with WP:V, the only source is IMDB. Rackabello 20:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is still in creation. Re-add the tag after 3 days. Thank You. Universal Hero 20:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verified. Nanjupuram is a notable film.[23]; as the lead actor in a notable performance, I'm willing to consider him notable as well, presuming that he is the Raghav mentioned as starring in it. Let's find a Tamil speaker for further advice. Also enwiki is an encyclopedia written in English, not an encyclopedia restricted to writing about American, British, and Australian Anglophone topics. cab 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an English language wiki, it doesn't mean that non english speaking people have no place here. Nick mallory 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as of now, needs verification. Bearian 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab and Bearian. However, article needs to be referenced. Antorjal 20:57, 31 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. One 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damenlou Hotel[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete view - this is a small hotel with no notability demonstrated in the article; much of the article being a promo for the hotel. Needs multiple independent reliable sources to be kept. Bridgeplayer 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This hotel is notable due to its location, its name, and its birthplace of a local dish, all of which are obvious in the article (although the later seems a tad over-writtern). Size is not the only determinant of notability.--Huaiwei 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of these claims can be relied upon, at present, since the article is wholly unsourced and fails WP:V. Where are the multiple, reliable sources attesting to its notability? The dish may be notable but the creation of a single dish hardly makes a hotel notable particularly since there is no sourced link to the dish's creation. Bridgeplayer 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - affirming the nomination, I have cleaned up the article and have removed copyvio material lifted directly from the website and affirming it fails WP:V --Russavia 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article needs just a clean-up. —Sengkang 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, birthplace of a popular dish. --Vsion 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to focus more on the restaurant than the hotel. Kappa 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think this is an RS, so the hotel is notable all by itself, although the restaurant is more so. [24] Kappa 07:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I think this is an RS.... Nope. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable due to birthplace of dish, & connection to famous restaurant. Could do with expansion, but notable enough. --Beloved freak 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant sources establishing notability. Agathoclea 20:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Travel guidebooks aren't reliable sources, and there's not even really an attempt to assert notability. {[WP:NOT|WP is not a travel guide or hotel listings service]]. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- for the nth time, needs cleaning up does not equal delete. ever heard of locus standi? Chensiyuan 03:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloane Court Hotel[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Article is original research, whilst notability of hotel is to come. --Gavin Collins 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Keb25 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article could be speedy deleted as spam. It reads like an advertisement. Vegaswikian 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article does read like an advertisement for the hotel and could very easily be a copyedit. The only problem with deleting the article is that the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore is a world famous hotel. While it does not have some of the history as other famous hotels, in the 20th and 21st century its notability should warrant some sort of article. Perhaps a face-lift would be a more constructive alternative for anyone willing to take this on. If no one does, then it should be deleted as per nom. Mkdw ^talk 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hotel is notable for being the root for the name of the Shangri-La Dialogue, among other things. Yes, it needs a clean up etc but it should not be deleted. --Rifleman 82 03:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable material here, and sourced. DGG (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Chensiyuan 13:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Sengkang 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the above, the hotel's architecture is even notable enough to be selected to be featured in a publication and exhibition by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore. Non-notable and unencyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, flagship, and first hotel in an international chain. Luke! 02:07, 31 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. --Core desat 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negara on Claymore Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no encyclopedic information. DGG (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the article and where is the notability? The assertion about mineral water in the pool, is of no importance. This is technology that has been used in spas for years! So being the first hotel pool in Singapore to use it does not appear to make the hotel notable. If there is something notable here, then merge per WP:LOCAL. Vegaswikian 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. Keb25 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no other arguments for deletion. --Core desat 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meritus Mandarin Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The tallest building in the centre of swanky Orchard Road since its completion, the flagship hotel of a major hotel chain, features the tallest revolving restaurant in the country and another famous restaurant serving the de-facto national dish of Singapore, and the article forgets to mention that it also happens to be the de-facto venue for many functions by the Government of Singapore. Non-notable? Hardly.--Huaiwei 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-notable? Possibly not. Totally unreferenced? Absolutely. To repeat here: Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. --Russavia 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if you are acquinted with this website enough to realise there are alternatives to AFDs, and there are other outlets available for individuals who are out to be disruptive.--Huaiwei 06:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per above. —Sengkang 15:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Huaiwei. Claims to notability inlcuding housing the tallest revolving restaurant in Singapore, has received awards from reputable and notable organizations. Re-wording not deletion is required. Luke! 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 20:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major luxury hotel in center of very internationally important city. Designed by notable architect Kevin Roche. --Oakshade 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup (despite being nominator!) I think this one clearly has above average notability but the focus of the article should be the hotel's history, architecture, place in city's history. Not on its flat-screen TVs. Pascal.Tesson 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tall enough to be an automatic keep. Golfcam 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per awards (that need references). Luke! 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - let's not go down that road. Do we know if any of these awards have any sort of significance? Are we going to create an article for a model of toaster every time a consumer's guide proclaims it is the best new toaster of 2007? As I said earlier, hotel articles are worthless if they are centered around the quality of the hotel's services. Pascal.Tesson 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context and point of view are required. Granted in the real world we all specialize in specific occupations/industries, we are not all aware of other industry distinctions and awards. These awards clearly demonstrate the notability of this hotel property in the hospitality/tourism industry. Luke! 02:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Chensiyuan 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough said. —Sengkang 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may look like a mere slab block, but it was featured in a publication and exhibition by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore, for instance. Is its architectural merit disputed? Non-notable and unencyclopedic?--Huaiwei 16:00, 30 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. Peacent 02:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pan Pacific Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder." -- this is the relevant passage on WP:NOT pasted wholesale. Please explain how you use the guideline to support your conclusions. Or have I looked at the wrong guideline? Could you also please elaborate on the "procedural norm"? I understand that there exists the Pan Pacific article, but then this will be more a case of merging. Moreover, for the hotels which you have tagged for deletion but do not belong to a chain, what then? Are standalone hotels inherently not notable? Context is key, but one must be apprised of the context, rather than overestimating its visitation, of which the latter is unnecessary since the relevant articles set out the context already. Chensiyuan 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Pan Pacific Hotel is the tallest building in Marina Centre, and has been a prominent building since its completion. Its architectural merit far outstrips the notability of its usage as a hotel, even thou its flagship restaurant also happens to be reknown locally.--Huaiwei 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough said. —Sengkang 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Peacent 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Centennial Singapore[edit]

Procedural nom to list separately the various hotels bundled together in an earlier nomination. Rationale for deletion remains insufficient notability and of no encyclopedic value (see WP:NOT#TRAVEL). Pascal.Tesson 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major hotel in Downtown Singapore, and is part of the major cluster of hotels in the Marina Centre area. Needs expansion, that's all. —Sengkang 15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only businessman-centred hotel in the Marina Centre area which features a distinctive facade which was reputed to be reflective of the architect's love of the number 13, going by the narration during a Duck Tours ride. If this hotal is of little significance, I doubt a tour like that would bother to single it out from the forest of buildings out there.--Huaiwei 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Huaiwei's point, 13 in Cantonese is a lucky number. —Sengkang 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the facade is distinctive--and it certainly seems to be so from the picture-- it should be mentioned in the article. That it wasn't, shows the lack of care in writing these articles. Writing a large number of similarly commercially oriented articles in a formulaic way invites deletion.DGG (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bottom[edit]

:Nick Bottom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) The entire article is essentially a lengthy plot summary. A decent summary of the play exists already in the A Midsummer Night's Dream article, there's no need to branch out unnecessary detail into separate character articles. Also, take note that the character does not have substantial notability outside of Shakespeare, and I fail to see even enough notability as a character in the play to warrant an individual article. Calgary 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion, as they too are primarily plot summaries, and fail to satisfy the notability guidelines:~~

Calgary 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw all Yeah, so I've read over the whole discussion, thought about it, and it does seem that my original nomination was a bit erroneous. While the state of most of these articles is indeed terrible, it seems that they satisfy the notability requirements, either individually or as part of a collective, and that there is information with which the articles can be expanded. Other issues may exist, but they are of the sort that can be settled without deletion. Sorry to put you all through this, in the future I'll put more thought into any nominations I may make. Calgary 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All Wikipedia is not Sparknotes™ Rackabello 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't be so hasty. These articles can easily be expanded more than it may seem on the surface. Take the Rosaline article, for example, a GA. Rosaline is a character in Romeo and Juliet who is never seen and has no speaking parts. Compared to other Shakespearean characters, her importance is miniscule. However, since so much is written about Shakespeare and his plays, quite a bit of information could be gathered and a good article was put together. This was largely a test to see whether other, similar articles, such as these could be expanded. It has been proven that they can. Another article that has been expanded this way is Sycorax (Shakespeare), another unseen character in Shakespeare's The Tempest. This article was once a mere summary on a disambig page. The characters you have listed all have appearances and speaking parts in A Midsummer Night's Dream, and would thus probably have even more scholarly information about them. Clearly, the answer then is to expand, not to delete. Wrad 20:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:FICTION says that minor characters (with very rare exceptions) do not merit their own articles. Clarityfiend 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that these are all exceptions, as it has been shown in my above comment that even the most minor Shakespeare character has more than enough scholarly comment to merit his or her own article. Can you say this for any other fiction author? Probably not. Clearly this is the exception. Wrad 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shakespeare is arguably the most highly regarded and most frequently studied writer in history, so I agree that Shakespearean characters would likely merit exception, but still we must review everything on a case-by-case basis. Shakespearean characters do not have inherent notability, and while there are under certain circumstances cases in which minor characters may be worthy of their own article, this is certainly not universally applicable. Surely you can't say that a character like Egeus or Philostrate has the same notability and is subject to the same amount of literary analysis as Rosaline. Yes, there are exceptions, and those exceptions may occur more frequently within the works of someone like Shakespeare, but when judging whether a case merits exception, we must judge it fairly and independently of other articles. If someone can establish that all of these characters have notability, and are frequent subjects of substantial literary analysis, that would be a very reasonable justification for keeping them. If not, the fact that other minor Shakespearean characters are notable enough to have their own articles is irrelevant. Calgary 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree. Rosaline is probably the least notable of Shakespeare's characters. I could easily say that "a character like Egeus or Philostrate has the same notability and is subject to the same amount of literary analysis as Rosaline." Someone just needs to expand these articles on a case by case basis, not delete them. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Wrad 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Giving an article the benefit of the doubt is probably the worst approach to take on Wiipedia. Let's take a look at Philostrate, for example. Philostrate appears in two scenes, and has around five lines. His connection to the plot is minimal, if not nonexistant. So how do you propose we expand the article? Or what about the article on Peter Quince, or Snout, how may those be expanded? I have to say, ignoring a significant lack of notability in favor of the idea that because they're Shakespearean characters they're "probably notable", even though fact says otherwise is a very bad idea. Calgary 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Watch me do the impossible, then. I'll try to expand what I can in the next few days. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. If I can't find anything, then it probably isn't out there. Wrad 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I just did a simple search among scholarly books and found a good amount on Nick Bottom, Egeus, and Philostrate already. I'm sure plenty more will be found easily with little effort. Look forward to some expansion. Wrad 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream and prune mercilessly for grade school lit. crit. and original research. There are several books and book-length works on the characters Hamlet and Falstaff. There will never be a book about Philostrate: he and the other nominations fail to meet WP:FICT. The nominator's rationale(WP:NOT#PLOT) seems a bit irrelevant to me. — mholland (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most but delete Egeus and Philostrate. I'm fairly sure that reliable academic sources could be found for each of the lovers and the Rude Mechanicals, but Egeus and Philostrate are so minor that they almost certainly wouldn't have sufficient sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please take a look at the recent changes to the two articles, especially Philostrate. Egeus is a bit trickier, not because there is so little about him, but because there is so much. Beyond being a character in Dream, he is also in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and Ovid's Metamorphoses, to name just a few. I'm trying to figure how I'm going to reorganize it. We may want to turn it into a redirect and merge it with Aegeus. Wrad 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree about a redirect from Egeus to Aegeus, or even a merge. If there is not substantial information for Shakespeare's Egeus to have it's own article, then Egeus should redirect to either A Midsummer Night's Dream or Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream, if we end up with one of those. Take note, Egeus in A Midsummer Night's Dream and Aegeus the mythological figure may be related, or based on the same character, but they are not the exact same. It would be like redirecting Puck (Shakespeare) to Puck (mythology) (and by the way, Puck's article could use a good deal of work). Calgary
    - I'm not so sure. Take a look at how other character articles deal with characters that span several stories, such as Green Knight and Troilus. It's not as messy as you might think. It's actually the way scholars discuss characters, constantly comparing them to previous and later stories, commenting on the changes made and why the author may have changed them. Besides that, I'm confident that Egeus can stand on his own. I just stumbled across a solid essay on him, and scholars generally consider him more important than Philostrate, who has a pretty fleshed out article. I'd like to pick a fight with whoever the goon was who made all of these lame character articles, though. There is so much out there to add to them, and now I have to clean up his or her mess. Grrr! In any case, I can guarantee you that none of these articles is going to be deleted. There's just too much information on Shakespeare and I'm just too determined to flesh them out and prove it to you. Wrad 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just a request, could you strike out Philostrate on the list above? It doesn't really match any of the reasons for deletion given in the AfD anymore... Wrad 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree...I'd withdraw the nomination for Philostrate, but as embarassing as it is, I don't quite know how to withdraw a nomination for a single article that's been nominated as part of a group. I beg your pardon. Also, I've been thinking, and while the individual characters themselves may not be terribly notable on their own, perhaps we could stand to have articles for the Mechanicals as a collective and the Lovers as a collective? I say this because these are two groups in which the characters are very closely associated, with a good deal of information likely to be shared, as well as the fact that from a literary standpoint the collective groups may be of just as much interest and of just as much notability as the individual characters (if not more so). Your thoughts? Calgary 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's how I would withdraw the nomination: Remove his name from the list, create his own personal entry on the AfD, and then just say it has been withdrawn. When it come to talking about the groups as well as the individuals, I had also thought that might be an option. We'll just have to see what there is out there. I have run in to quite a bit about the Rude Mechanicals as a group, but not much about the lovers. Wrad 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all but with a stay of execution. Do not underestimate Shakespearean scholars , I take Wrad at his word that he has found several book length sources on most of these characters (and I find that easy to believe). As for the suggestion of redirects...well, it looks like Puck (Shakespeare) might become a redirect if it isn't worked on soon, and I think this is a good pattern to follow. If a well sourced article on a Shakespearean character is not possible, the spelling of that character in Shakespeare should redirect to the main mythological or historical reference. Calgary, you say (understandably, and 'technically' correctly) that Aegeus and Egeus are not the same. This is actually not true. Spelling conventions had not been systematized by Shakespeare's time (not for English or for Anglicized Latin and Greek names) . When he names his character 'Egeus', he probably (with the most certainty we have) means Aegeus (they'd even be pronounced the same, in fact). So a redirect or a disambig wouldn't be a bad idea. Oh, and your suggestion for an article for the Mechanicals and one for the Lovers is a really good idea in my opinion. However, you've got to leave room for a character like Nick Bottom, who has been written about to no end, to also have an article (IMO, that is). CaveatLector^Talk 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelling aside, what I was essentially trying to say is thatthere's a substantial difference between the Egeus of Shakespeare and Aegeus of classical mythology. Still, I feel the same (perhaps more strongly)about Theseus, however it seems that he and Hippolyta don't get their own articles as Shakespearean characters. I suppose so long as the Aegeus article makes at least some mention of A Midsummer Night's Dream a redirect wouldn't be too bad...Still, come to think of it, if Egeus is really Theseus's father, that would make the whole thing kind of creepy, no? Calgary 05:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all). there is no character in shakespeare so minor that he hasn't been discussed in the scholarly commentaries. There should never be a need for a redirect. Its like characters in the Bible, as has been repeatedly been affirmed here. There is a difference between minor characters in Potter and in shakespeare--400 years worth of secondary sources, to be exact., DGG (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom definitely desrerves a Keep on notability grounds; therefore I oppose the grouping of the other articles: they should be nomninated and discussed separately. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As highly notable as the author is, and considering the works are finite and the author is unlikely to produce many more characters, I'm inclined to believe the lesser characters inherit notability in this case. the_undertow ^talk 08:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without commenting on some of the others, Nick Bottom is unquestionably sufficiently notable for an article of his own. AndyJones 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not nominate any of the articles a second time. They are plainly valid encyclopedic topics. RandomCritic 14:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be a bit biased, having written a majority of the Bottom article, but in defense of that article specifically, Nick Bottom is considered one of Shakespeare's most iconic character roles. If anything, the article deserves expansion by someone who has the knowledge and resources to expand on the history of the character and it's influence on theatre and on acting, of which I assure you, it has.Benjudah 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (Avril Lavigne song)[edit]

The article begins, ""Runaway" is the possible upcoming fourth single from Avril Lavigne's third studio album, The Best Damn Thing" — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources cited, much less reliable and verifiable ones. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much to add here. Pure speculation, no sources cited. Delete PERNOM. Spellcast 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (even a Lavigne fan) but this WP:CRYSTAL, not official yet.--JForget 23:00, 29 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. --Core desat 07:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hucko[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Second nomination. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. All the sources for the article are websites related to Slovio, possibly created by Hucko himself. Amir E. Aharoni 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When this article isn't promoting Mark Hucko, it's a magnet for vicious libel against him (edits which I've deleted a couple of times). I don't know who the guy is or why he attracts such malice, but it shouldn't be our problem. I don't think this article has anything in it that's worth the effort it takes to protect him from libel. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article is being vandalised often, since when is that an argument for deleting it? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio (2nd nomination). I would not object against this article being merged and redirected to Slovio though, since that's what Mr. Hucko owes his notability to. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless reliable third-party sources are added to the article to establish his notability. BTW, I guess, since his entire article is sourced from his own webpage, that this passes WP:LIVING? Just want to make sure. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with prejudice - I went to Mark Hucko's webpage, and not only does he link to the Wikipedia article on himself, but he posts the following: "It is just these limited minds of the inquisitors which have been suppressing the multi-level cosmological model and who have been erasing it from the search engines and from the Wikipedia. Just because the earth is flat - in their minds - it must remain flat also in the minds of the rest of the world." Given what seems to be an interest in promoting his own content on this website, I'd need even stronger persuasion that his page should be kept on Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with more prejudice - Lower on his page, he also posts the name and home phone number of one of the people who argued for deletion of the Multi-level Cosmology article. I guess it's not kosher to bring that up, as an article should be judged on its own merits and not on a person's behaviour - but I think it's suggestive of something. Just, go read his webpage. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Either this or the article on the language should be kept. I hope the closing is co-ordinated.DGG (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but i nominated both of them and i am watching both of them.

This is a non-notable person that created a non-notable language, so why not delete both?

Putting aside notability - i am not even sure that this person is completely real. The language is non-notable, but it is as real as the website slovio.com; but the person could be made up. There are no verifiable external sources, that the name of the creator of Slovio is Mark Hucko. Think about it. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we come up with better sources. As it is, it fails WP:V and WP:A. If Slovio is kept, redirect to there. - Aagtbdfoua 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also as a soap box for an obvious NN person with NN and nonverifiable ideas. He is "not even wrong." I agree with Rspeer that an ongoing target for POV edits must be deleted or protected. Bearian 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the original AFD I opted for delete, then sought assistance from our linguists, which prompted the following:
Keep. He's the creator of a relatively well-known international auxiliary language (Slovio), so I don't see the reason why his biography should be deleted. We have articles for the creators of such minor IAL projects like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol, do we? So why not him? And in case you're wondering, Coelacan and Dweller; I am a linguist and I'm not in the least a fan of Slovio. — N-true 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On that basis, I remain a firm keeper. --Dweller 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the nomiator has also put Slovio up for deletion. --Dweller 12:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for reiterating your opinion.

The problem is that there is no proof whatsoever that this language is indeed well-known.

Slovio is not the same as Novial; Although it didn't achieve the level of popularity of Esperanto, it was a work of a very notable linguist - Otto Jespersen. I am not so sure of what to make of Interlingue and Solresol, but the existence of articles about them is not a very good argument against deletion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?, although it is not defined as a policy).

By the way - i am a linguist, too (i go to sleep reading Jespersen every night ...) --Amir E. Aharoni 12:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple proposal. Let's close this AfD as premature and concentrate on the Slovio article AfD. If Slovio is deemed nn and the article deleted, then as Hucko's greatest notability claim, his biog can be prodded and I for one would have no objections to it going down the pan. If Slovio is demonstrated as notable, it would inform this debate, if indeed anyone still wanted to bring Hucko's biog to AfD at any point. --Dweller 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have hundreds of AfD's under my belt, so i am not an expert on the bureaucratic process, but closing and then re-prodding this article seems quite redundant.

More than that - it is wrong. The problem of verifiability is much worse in the case of Mark Hucko than it is in the case of Slovio. As i said above, Slovio is definitely real, because the website slovio.com is real; it is just badly non-notable. Slovio is real because texts in it appear on slovio.com. But Mark Hucko cannot be verified as a real person - Mark Hucko are two words and a funny photograph on a website that was published by God-knows-who. (This link may shed some light on it: http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.slovio.com ; It does mention some Hucko under a Czech flag, although Liptovsky might be a place in Slovakia. I am totally confused by now.)

So the article on Mark Hucko should be deleted even if Slovio is kept, because it seems impossible to find any respected verifiable source for the facts that it presents. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving back here) What's the rush? Establish Slovio notability. If Slovio is deleted, Hucko definitely goes. If Slovio is kept, then let's argue Hucko's notability/existence. --Dweller 13:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rush - both AfD's will take at least a few more days to get closed. It will just be a pain to reopen 3rd nomination for Hucko. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yabut - even if Slovio is notable (and I voted weak keep for that article), it doesn't mean that Hucko is notable enough to have an article on his own. "Notability is not inherited" is an important consideration here. My personal opinion is, Hucko information should be merged into a small section of the Slovio article, if there can be 3rd-party references found that establish his existence. This is a similar argument as to why we at Wikipedia, instead of having an article on e.g. a person who was the victim of a crime, generally only have an article on the crime - unless the victim is notable outside of the crime committed against him. I haven't been convinced by anyone that we should have an argument on Hucko, even if we assume that his Slovio creation is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Hucko, I can presently support the idea of keeping the article on his invented language under the assumption that someone here will soon add third-party links to the article - but I can't support the idea of having an article on Mark Hucko himself, unless someone can prove he has 3rd-party-asserted notability beyond that of his invented language. Also, I feel Amir's above argument is a very convincing one - unless we can find 3rd party proof that Mark Hucko isn't (say) an internet sockpuppet, we shouldn't have an article on him. Does WP:LIVING even allow us to have an article on a person based entirely on "his" own cranky webpage? If so, I think that leaves us on shaky legal ground. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I maintain that if Slovio is deleted, Hucko must be deleted. If Slovio is kept, it importantly informs the debate on Hucko, not that Hucko necessarily must be kept too. --Dweller 13:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, giving you your point, we still need to determine whether there's any third-party proof of his existence, to satisfy WP:LIVING, and now's as good a time as any to do that. Though I also say above that even if Slovio is notable, notability is not inherited and therefore this argument could be independent. I'd rather the Slovio AfD be withdrawn instead of this one, for reasons given above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced. Being a shameless self-promoter is not much of a claim to fame. Friday (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are maybe three reliably sourced sentences in this article and they wouldn't be out of place as a mention in Slovio. The rest of the stuff in this BIO is unimportant, unsourced, or both. SchmuckyTheCat
Delete - No notability asserted outside of self-published sources. According to WP:V, articles should not be primarily supported by such sources. - Crockspot 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete level of verifiability almost nil. Level of notability... not much better, frankly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal promotion, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No evidence that this person even exists; crankish claims; violates just about every Wikipedia policy (attribution, verification, notability, reliable source and the rest) Even is Slovio is notable, that does not imply that Mark Hucko is notable. His creation of non-notable psuedoscience also doesn't qualify for notability. Nor does unproven claims about immortality research. This should have been speedy deleted, instead of wasting Wikipedia's disk space with this AFD. Life, Liberty, Property 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, Sydney[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Most reads like an advertisement. Russavia 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this and its an advert, not a encyclopedia article, so should be deleted. M♠ssing Ace 19:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, no notability. Luke! 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News and Google News Archive have a number of results for this hotel. [25]. Dick Cheney stayed there while in Sydney earlier this year. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google news link provided above has a grand total of 4 items none of which are about the hotel itself (not even close actually). The fact that Dick Cheney stayed in that hotel is completely irrelevant as one would be hard-pressed to find a luxury hotel that has not had famous guests. At best, the notability of the hotel seems questionable but what really kills it for me is the completely inappropriate tone: this reads like a brochure and has no place around here. Pascal.Tesson 03:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and of course clean--the tone can be edited.DGG (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the tone can and should be edited. But what do we end up with except a sub-stub informing us that this hotel exists? Wikipedia is not a directory: if the hotel hasn't been the subject of significant third-party coverage, there's no point in keeping the article. Pascal.Tesson 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, if it were the Old Sydney Parkroyal (now the Old Sydney Holiday Inn I believe), then sure it would be notable, as per Heritage Listing, but the Shangri-La Hotel (prev. ANA Hotel) has nothing notable about it, apart from obviously being a Shangri-La Hotel, which all had their own articles, regardless of notability. Dread the day when every Holiday Inn has its own article upon that basis. --Russavia 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a tourist brochure. WP:NOT#TRAVEL. By all means bring it back if something significant is unearthed, but currently its a no from me. —Moondyne 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major luxury hotel in a major city. Should be cleaned up not to look like an advert. --Oakshade 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#Travel etc. Alternatively, mention it at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts.Ga rr ie 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 11:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its also one of the taller buildings in Sydney, so there should be information about its construction, architecture, etc. Most skyscrapers in different cities around Australia and the world have articles for this reason. JRG 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What in the article asserts notability? Vegaswikian 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, The Marina, Cairns[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable aside from winning an employment award. Russavia 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article establishes notability. Luke! 02:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does?!? You mean because it "received an award for Best Tourism Education and Training Provider at the 2006 Tropical North Queensland Tourism Awards"? With all due respect, that award is completely meaningless. The article does not establish any sort of notability.

That is your point of view only. Best employer awards are considered to be notable and well respected distinctions in some industries. Your point of view could be said of other industry-specific awards bestowed on other industry organizations. Luke! 06:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industry awards can be relevant, but this seems a very local one. DGG (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News [26] and Google News Archives [27] gets plenty of results. An APEC Trade Ministers Meeting was held there recently. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should not look at the number of hits but their quality. There is little of substance in any of these articles. How does holding a routine APEC meeting (note: meeting, not summit) make the hotel a topic of interest for an encyclopedia? Holding business meetings is what business hotels do. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple line in the Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts will do. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and it isn't the Yellow pages. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal. —Moondyne 10:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#Travel etc. Alternatively, mention it at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts.Ga rr ie 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and (more importantly) WP:N and WP:RS. Zivko85 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Keb25 11:23, 31 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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makati Shangri-La, Manila[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 19:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per all the hotel awards it has won. Significantly more than other hotel properties. Luke! 02:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The awards it has won are totally unreferenced so we can't be sure they really have won them? --Russavia 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. This reads like a brochure of no encyclopedic value. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major luxury hotel in financial center of Manila. Awards further notability. There's too much topic-specific content here to merge (along with all other Shangri-La Hotels) into another article. --Oakshade 16:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to appropriate article. One of the more notable hotels in the country. Shrumster 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for it's awards, plus major hotel in Manila. Awards are now referenced. --Beloved freak 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found an news article about it. Also seems to be the site of some political meetings in some news articles. However, I did not bother getting those articles as they don't depict the hotel but the events. --Lenticel ^(talk) 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Davies[edit]

Procedural nomination. An editor who claims to be Ian Davies requests that the page be deleted (see Talk:Ian Davies) and in any case, it's not clear that there exists sufficient reliable third-party coverage to build an article properly. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a particulary well known betting site. Nice rags to riches story, but not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Mike33 - t@lk 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This page was created a few years ago by my business partner, who believed it satisfied the minimum criteria for inclusion here. Since then, I have periodically kept it up to date and endeavoured to comply with all requests for citations and expansion etc from Wikipedia editors. However, the page's very existence seems a source of irritation to some, and it has often been vandalised. I certainly have no personal objection to its deletion - I am not a self publicist - not that my personal view is relevant to your final decision anyway. Wikipedia's editors will of course do as they see fit, and, fwiw, my objective personal view is that the page should be deleted. By the way, it's NOT a rags to riches story - it's merely a brief account of a moderately well off bloke (me) who launched an unfunded internet start up, which has 2,000 members but, due to the low-margin nature of the business, has not even reached profitability, hence he (me) remains moderately well off! A non story, in other words. - Ian Davies

Delete. Arguably there is sufficient notability for BackAndLay (.com), to which information could be merged, but individual is close but short of WP:BIO, so there is no reason not to honor this request. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is truly borderline notable only, and I see no reason for not following the advice of the subject.DGG (talk) 18:54, 30 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 a mix of A7 and G11 Pascal.Tesson 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 19:00, 29 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. --Core desat 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz Carlton Kuala Lumpur[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per awards that it has won. It has, on average, more awards than most average hotel properties. Luke! 00:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect to parent article or stubify to remove all the spam the article reads so much like a brochure that actually a lot of it is a copyvio from this brochure. This could almost get the boot as blatant advertisement. The nominator's point still stands: the quality of the hotel does not make it a valid encyclopedic topic. If there's nothing to say about the hotel beyond: "it's in Kuala Lumpur" and "it's very luxurious" then we are not a travel guide and this has to go. Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree. This article is not just about a luxurious hotel in Kuala Lumpur. Though the article is about this, it is more about a distinguished hotel in Kuala Lumpur - not any average hotel in KL. This hotel has received several accolades that are well recognized by tourism professionals published by leading tourism/hospitality publications such as Conde Nest, Travel & Leisure, etc. Though copyvio is one area where we can agree, they are unacceptable. At most, re-wording not deletion. Luke! 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the difficulties of nominated a whole group of similar articles at the same time is that people tend to get impatient and give the same argument instead of looking at the articles individually, and this one should be kept because of the awards, even if one thinks the others should not.DGG (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the notability of local business awards--and survey based awards-- was challenged in one of the afds above, I note that this has 18 awards, including 1 each from Bloomberg, and The Independent and 2 from Conde Nast -- I consider at least the first two of those as RSs, and Conde Nast somewhat reliable, and these make it notable, the rest adding somewhat. DGG (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Luxury hotel in major economically important city and per multiple awards as indicated by DGG. --Oakshade 02:13, 31 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 wasSpeedy deleted as non-notable business and pretty close to blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mercure Puka Park Resort[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:45, 29 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 wasSpeedy deleted as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pudong Shangri-La, Shanghai[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as a high-rise building (180 m, 43 floors). --Qyd 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort & Spa, Cebu

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being "the Philippines' largest and most exclusive deluxe resort" is most certainly an assertaion of notability, not to mention something that makes the topic notable. It's clear the nom is simply pasting the same sentence into every AfD in their hotel AfD spree without even reading the articles. --Oakshade 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is widely written on WP that Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. This article, as well as EVERY article I have nominated do NOT cite multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources to establish notability, and hence, based upon those reasons alone, every AfD I have instigated is within warranted and within guidelines. And I stand by my nomination for this article. --Russavia 21:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Furthermore, the claim of notability of being the largest, is all well and good, I can claim that pigs can fly, but that doesn't make it true. And as per the article, its claim of being the largest is also hogwash, particular given this[28] --Russavia 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - The reliable source The Philippine Star says it is. That Waterfront Cabu City press release you cited doesn't even counter this article's (now referenced) claim. (You're not working for the Waterfront Cabu City Hotel & Casino, correct?) The claim was verifiable, but instead of tagging the article for a request for references from editors which would've been the responsible thing to do, you just went ahead and tried to delete it. Sorry, you don't own articles. --Oakshade 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnd this reliable source[29] proves that your source is wrong (and out of date by some 6 years by the looks of it). And I know I don't own the articles, but it is ultimately the responsibility of editors to source their material, and it is made clear that unsourced material can be disputed and removed at any stage. But the way that these Shangri-La articles have been presented, they all come across as spam, so open it up to discussion. By the way, I think we need to remove the Philippine Star from reliable sources? ;) --Russavia 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. When the article was improved by an added reliable source being provided, the nominator deleted the referenced material and its reliable source, [30] a very bad faith effort. For the benefit of editors, here is the referenced content...

Shangri-La's Mactan Island Resort & Spa is a resort hotel owned by Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts located at the island of Mactan, Cebu. It is the Philippines' largest^[1] and most exclusive deluxe resort, equipped with 546 guest rooms & suites.

^ Loop, Honey Jarque (August 21, 2005). "A shangri-la at Shangri-La Mactan Island Resort". The Philippine Star.

Editors and the closing admin can make up their own mind from this information. --Oakshade 22:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Cmon Oakshade, I added disputed tags to the article, which you then referenced and removed my dispute tags, but due to links provided here (where I notice you have yet to comment on) I removed the referenced assertion in the article based upon 2 sources stating that the hotel referenced in the talk page is in fact larger, which negates any sense of 'notability' a hotel may have from being 'large'. You reverted this, to which I have re-added dispute tags, which you AGAIN removed. If you cared to refer to the talk page, as the tag says, you wouldn't need to post the above. --Russavia 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further rebuttal, I also take offence at your claim of 'bad faith' edit, when in fact, the claim you put in the article was removed with a link in the talk page to anyother source affirming the 'largest' to the Waterfront Cebu. If anything, the edit was fully within zee rules, this is a case of you simply refusing to refer to the talk page. --Russavia 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to this edit Oakshade [31] which was made a minute before I removed your content. I will be waiting for an apology from yourself. --Russavia 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first link on that talk page post is to a press release - if you think a press release is a reliable source, you need to brush up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.- The 2nd is simply an introduction to a news organization. --Oakshade 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would care to look at the edit made a couple of min after the correct link was provided. And this was before my last edit on the article (with a notation to refer to the talk page and before you posted what you did here. --Russavia 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, president shows up to the opening = notable. Kappa
Delete "Not Notable" means "Fails to demonstrate how it meets WP:N - which in this instance means "does not include two independent references to reliable sources". Only reference is a press release. I think if there was more to be found then Russavia would have by now.Ga rr ie 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Golden Flower, Xian[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notabiliy.Ga rr ie 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is, not informative and no claim of notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advert Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Hotel, Kunshan[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:29, 29 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. --Core desat 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel New Delhi[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable here. DGG (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major $70 million [32] luxury hotel in major economically important city. --Oakshade 01:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Being in an 'economically important city' is not notability. Vegaswikian 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 22:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Helang[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it also reads kind of like an advertisement. Useight 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps it is non-notable, but what can I do, as the author of that article to prevent it from being deleted? Acs4b ^{T C U} 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you would need to ascertain exactly what makes this hotel notable when compared to every other 4-star hotel in the world. On a sidenote, as Langkawi is my fave island getaway, I would have thought that the Pelangi Beach Resort would be notable seeing how it was instrumental in the growth of tourism in Langkawi (but even then it would be pushing the envelope in an encyclopaedia). --Russavia 12:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of importance and spammish. Pascal.Tesson 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 21:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus. One 04:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Dubai[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major luxury hotel in major economically important city. --Oakshade 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If all 5-star hotels deserved an article, simply based on 'luxury', we would have literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of articles such as this, with nothing truly notable about them. These are more wikitravel type articles, rather than wikipedia ones. --Russavia 16:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5-star luxury hotels are notable. These are places where heads of states, celebrities and corporate CEOs stay and frequently important meetings/press conferences are there. These aren't like the corner Motel 6s. Just because there are a lot of them doesn't magically make them non-notable. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no practical limit to the number of topics covered. --Oakshade 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. Also it's a prominent landmark [33] and maybe even the largest hotel in the middle east [34]. Kappa 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re-read the landmark article, it 'culminates at the Grand Hyatt Dubai', it doesn't assert it being a landmark. As to being the largest, maybe doesn't work for WP, verifiability does, it either is or it isn't? --Russavia 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, largest in Dubai. [35]. Kappa 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Or does who owns the hotel establish notability? As to being a 5-star hotel, read Star (classification). Not a status that is formally awarded so while nice, not a verifiable fact. Could be a speedy delete as spam or empty. Vegaswikian 22:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Grand Hyatt’s five-star status is not in doubt" [36]. Kappa 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy deleted as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (fix format by Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

Traders Hotel, Dubai[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This was fully discussed two months ago here and no new arguments have been produced to support deletion. TerriersFan 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League 2008-09[edit]

The first nomination may have failed, but I believe this still breaks WP:CRYSTAL it doesn't tell you anything on what is happening, the 2008 champions league isn't even fully decided yet. I think we should delete this until next year. The sunder king 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains a great deal of information. Why waste the effort that has been made out of some sort of crusade for anti-"Crystal ball" purity? The result of the last discussion was not even no consensus, it was a straight keep. Golfcam 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfD was barely two months ago and was a unanimous keep. There's no real crystal balling (no-one's predicting who will win or anything), and for the record, you don't make a second AfD nomination by moving the old one, which breaks many links. The nom should have used {{afdx}} instead of {{afd}} to create a An "Articles for deletion/UEFA Champions League 2008-09 (2nd nomination)". An admin's going to have to clean all that up. --DeLarge 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong speedy keep. Kept through last decision. The only crystal thing in here is whether or not it will be played in May 2009. James Luftan ^contribs 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep About an event virtually certain to happen and contains verifiable information e.g stadium for final, so does not meet WP:CRYSTAL, previous discussion clearly showed this. Davewild 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event will happen and much of the info about it is already known. Number 5 7 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am usually unsupportive of such articles, per crystalballing. However, despite the article is still considerably short, it already features some meaningful and notable content. --Angelo 10:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative, nothing incorrect, and not crystalballing (as per section 1 of WP:CRYSTAL) as far as I can see Da-rb 20:19, 30 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 - no arguments to delete. --Core desat 07:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island Shangri-La[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major luxury hotel in important city. Having largest Chinese silk painting in the world is also an assertion of notability. The nom is simply cutting and pasting the same line to dozens of hotels they nominated for AfD. --Oakshade 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the hotel awards that it has won. Additionally, it is the tallest hotel on Hong Kong Island. It also houses the world's largest Chinese silk painting in the lobby. Luke! 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Luke. This is one of the most famous hotels in HK. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kappa 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:39, 30 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 reverted to previous version, which was a disambiguation page. If the contributor of the graffiti artist article wishes to post an article on the tagger, he can re-create the article under a different name—which will undoubtedly be submitted to another AFD. ●DanMS • Talk 20:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jast[edit]

You can't have articles on grafiti writers! No notability, Incohrent mess. I hate to think what this website is coming to. The sunder king 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You can have articles on graffiti artists if they're notable (Banksy for example), but there is no evidence that this artist passes notability guidelines. --Darksun 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to this version, which was a legitimate disambiguation page. ●DanMS • Talk 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Never relised what had happened. The sunder king 20:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge.. Navou ^banter 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Landmark Mandarin Oriental Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mandarin Oriental. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Landmark Mandarin Oriental and Mandarin Oriental Hong Kong are not the same hotel. Wasabian 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually follow the link, it links to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, the holding group for the Mandarin properties. The Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong has its own article. Luke! 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Boutique hotel in major economically important city. Even USA Today profiled it [37]. --Oakshade 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The USA Today report is a travelogue, and provides nothing to notability of this hotel. --Russavia 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A travel report on the hotel by USA Today in itself provides indication of notability.--Oakshade 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per above. Wasabian 08:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mandarin Oriental, Hong Kong and clean up the latter for spammish content. Note that travel articles are inherently subjective in their coverage and as such should not be considered as reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Part of the HK Wiki Project Tom M. 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InterContinental Hong Kong[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major luxury hotel in an internationally important economic city is in itself an assertion of notability. Having the largest ballroom in Hong Kong adds to the notability. --Oakshade 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment find me one reference about the ballroom and I'll believe you.Ga rr ie 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a 5 star hotel is not an inclusion criteria. Meeting WP:N or WP:CORP are inclusion criteria and this article in it's current form does neither.Ga rr ie 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ga. Vegaswikian 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, nontrivial independent coverage here [38] and here [39]. Not to mention 100's of google new hits. Thanks the the spam nomination and spam delete votes without lifting a finger to actually check for notability. Kappa 08:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources you have provided are travel guides. Do these in all reality make an entity notable? --Russavia 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kappa 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly not. Just about every hotel on the planet is covered in multiple travel guides. It is in fact what we consider to be trivial coverage and in no way does it establish any sort of notability. These hotel reviews have no value when comes the time to construct a thorough article. Travel guides, contrary to scholarly work, have no responsibility for objectivity nor are they particularly reliable when it comes to information that doesn't relate to the price of a dbl room. Pascal.Tesson 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist thinks "The InterContinental is without doubt the best place to stay in Kowloon" and The Independent thinks it's one of the "Five Best Shopping Hotels in the world". Your assertion that "just about every hotel in the world" gets this kind of coverage is nonsensical. Kappa 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment: no indication that there is sufficient significant third-party coverage to build a proper encyclopedic article. Pascal.Tesson 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as deleted by Jaranda as "spam." —Kurykh 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island Pacific Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam by Umbrasquall (talk · contribs). Rhen recreate the redirect to Sino Group of Hotels. Pascal.Tesson 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Park Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 18:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. WP:NOT#TRAVEL.Ga rr ie 21:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no apparent notability. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Pacific Hotel & Towers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Royal Pacific Hotel & Towers

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Luxury hotel in major economically important city. The Wall Street Journal wrote about extensively about it [40]. --Oakshade 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not the yellow pages. Speedy delete as spam. No assertion of notability. Vegaswikian 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should even be speedy deleted as spam. I recommend reinstating the redirect to Sino Group of Hotels though. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xtra note to closing admin: if deleted, the accompanying images need to be speedy deleted as unfree and unused. Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Gold Coast Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major luxury hotel in major and internationally important city. Even the New York Times wrote about it. [41]. --Oakshade 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing the NY Times wrote about was that 2 hotels were opening. The article linked to does not assert notability. --Russavia 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. This looks like a template was used to add a bunch of hotels. Vegaswikian 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more or less copyvio of here [42] and presumably other places. Kappa 08:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be the work of likely spammer Alvinfoo (talk · contribs). Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Hong Kong[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major hotel. Hu Jin Tao stayed there. [43] Kappa 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question And what did he do there that makes the hotel notable? Did he participate in a bed-in? Did he protect Tutsi from the Hutu? Please don't tell me that soon we can expect an article on the Burning Shore Hotel, based simply on the fact that Brangelina stayed there? --Russavia 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Does the fact that Hu Jin Tao stayed there make it notable? If so, tell me how many hotels he stayed at. Vegaswikian 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Garden Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion as to why the hotel is notable. Russavia 17:57, 29 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. One 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Star Hotel[edit]

Article is in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL with no assertion of why it is notable. Russavia 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Luxury hotel next to the Russian presidential palace, the Constantine Palace. The participants in the 2006 G8 summit, which included many heads of state, were housed here[44][45], for which this hotel was reconstructed for. --Oakshade 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first link is a photo of 'some woman' at an exhibit. The second link mentions the building of the hotel, it doesn't actually state that heads of state stayed there but VIPs, even then simply because a 'famous' person has stayed there, doesn't give it notability as a hotel, there isn't a hotel in the world which couldn't claim a famous guest. --Russavia 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is of Laura Bush at the Baltic Star Hotel. --Oakshade 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know who it is, it was said half in jest. But half not. I can dig out a photo of Mahatir Mohammed at the Sheraton Langkawi Resort from the early 90s from one of my jaunts, but this does not require an article on the Sheraton Langkawi based upon that criteria only. That was the point I was making. --Russavia 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep involved in notable events. Places where notable events are held are notable. Spam can be dealt with by editing. Thus, many luxury hotels will in fact be notable. DGG (talk) 07:18, 30 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. This is a POV fork, and no one has satisfactorily addressed concerns about original research in line with policy or guidelines. --Core desat 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and human evolution[edit]

This is essentially uncited material, with no real context or explanation. Oli Filth 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran is a well established document. We have added Quranic references to support the points listed on this page. We will continue to add more supporting material as needed.Sylvia Nemmers 1:23, 29 July 2007

Note: User:Snemmers is the original editor of the article.

Delete No citations, Seems to lack much information. From my experience with the Quran it doesn't mention Human origins that much to begin with, especially "Evolution". Maybe a "Quranic creationism" or something would be more relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Though the article does not assert much notability, it can be merged to the Qur'an.--NAHID 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete What we will present is a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support. We need more time to finalize editing the page, give us a break!. Sylvia Nemmers 2:35, 29 July 2007
- The Quran is not an independent, reliable source for information on an interpretation of the Quran! Oli Filth 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely POV; the "Nobel Quran"? I suppose you meant "noble"? Anyhow, this is going to be 100% WP:OR if you "present a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support". Yeah, so the Earth was obviously created by Allah because surat 29:20 says "Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things." ([46]). You gotta love when religion tries to bend backwards to retrofit dogma with scientific legitimacy. --Targeman 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Comment The topic is "Quran and human evolution" so religion is a core part of it. Sylvia Nemmers 5:07, 29 July 2007

Delete as OR. Without reliable sources backing this up, it is pure original research. Also, Wikipedia has no user User:Sylvia Nemmers. This is in fact the sole author of the article, 67.164.132.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Cheers, Silly rabbit 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, 67.164.132.130 = Snemmers.

Delete as unsourced OR. The author appears to be making up the material along the way and has made dozens of seemingly trivial edits. The one "reference" website's coauthor is apparently this article's author. —Travis ^talk 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~DO NOT DELETE~~ Comment this is my first article and I am getting used to editing. I have added references that are authentic and I am a user "snemmers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.132.130 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2007

Now I am logged in as Snemmers, I had been working without being logged in. I am still getting used to the process.

~~DO NOT DELETE~~ - I have added references that are authentic. And why is my "DO NOT DELETE" being blocked out. I think that is uncalled for. I add my comments, but I don't mark up other people's comments. I believe the article meets the criteria, and it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snemmers (talk • contribs) 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Convention is that a recommendation (keep, delete, etc.) should only be given once by an editor. For ease of visual scanning, repeat recommendations by a single editor are stricken. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x 2) Please do not add multiple "do not deletes" to this discussion. One is enough for anyone. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~). Thanks —Travis ^talk 03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research, synthesis by the original editor. Note that the article was created by User:Snemmers. The article currently provides one external link; the linked cite contains a paper co-authored by a S. Nemmers. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research --Haemo 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ornis (t) 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid article re the evolution debate. Possibly rename in due course, to a more "learned" title, tro appease the Euro-American-sentric editors. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A different title or a non-Euro-American-sentric [sic] POV will not change the fact that this original research is completely devoid of verifiable independent sources. The one reference given is hardly independent as it was coauthored by this article's author. That website, which appears to be its authors' interpretation of the Qur'an, also fails to reference any independent sources. —Travis ^talk 10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But were it an erroneous interpretation, would not a Qu'ranic scholar have stepped up to say so ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that has to do with anything - expound? Sidatio 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Qu'ranic scholar has stepped up to defend it, either, so I'm not sure what we can glean from this... Oli Filth 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete an article on the subject is appropriate, but this ingenious interpretation is hardly representative of the topic, and i cannot tell from the article to what extent it is a reproduction of the one source, or the author's OR.DGG (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: It's really little more than unsourced original research. In its current state, I can't even see it being merged into anything. On the plus side, though, this would make a pretty good storyline for an RPG. Are you reading this, Square Enix? Sidatio 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken out all original research and left the verses of the Quran and the ideas that have been presented by Al-Tabari in his Tafsir which is a reliable source. There is no entry on this subject and what I have put is a start. Others can edit, that is what Wiki is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snemmers (talk • contribs).
- Comment. That now renders the article a collection of excerpts from a published work with no "article" to hold it together. At best, it's now a Wikisource candidate, although it's so excerpted that I don't think that's appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sylvia Nemmers has been working awhile on this article, and deserves the right to keep improving it, with additional sources (including cites to Quranic scholars). The Quran, like the Bible, is its own source. Interpretations of the verses of either may need more than one persons view, of course. Mandsford 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's no where near enough material here to justify its own article yet. Any thing worthwhile should probably go into Theistic evolution#Islam. ornis (t) 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst the Quran may be used as a source for the literal phrases used as part of the analysis, it cannot be used as a source for the analysis itself, because that would be original synthesis on the part of the author of this page. There must be independent sources to show that this analysis has been studies by more people than just the author. Oli Filth 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sources, and an importent topic, needs expantion. Exelionhunter 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Exelionhunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment As you might have guessed this is my first article. I will be working to make it a more complete discussion of the topic. I could use some time and suggestions rather than deletion requests. Snemmers 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As I suggested above, rather than trying to start an article from scratch, you should expand the Islam section of theistic evolution. If that section ever grows too large for the parent article it will be forked off into a new article.ornis (t) 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for your suggestion, but the topic is Quran and human evolution, not Islam and human evolution. The article presents verses in the Quran that deal with the topic of human evolution and what the original Quranic scholars said they ment. The article is not presenting the views of Muslims. Also Wiki is a search based resource and if this topic is merged with another article as you suggested, it will not be found when people are looking for what the Quran says about evolution.Snemmers 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Well, that's what redirects are for. In aid of which I'll change my vote to....
Merge and redirect to Theistic evolution#Islam. ornis (t) 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Navou ^banter 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Nest[edit]

I believe this article is in violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, additionally with no assertion as to the notability of the subject. Russavia 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Moonriddengirl 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eagle's Nest, a dab page, which has among other things, Hitler's alpine lodge, probably the best known Eagle's Nest named thing. Carlossuarez46 23:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surely the issue of misdirection isn't at stake here. I have no problem with a rename, and changing this specific spelling to a redirect to the disambig. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. "New Zealand's most expensive rental property" is hard to verify and subject to continuous change. An entry in the dab page seems suitable until the property gains some form of more reliable notability.Malathos 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New references show notability above and beyond a normal travel destination (it also makes #7 on CCN money's top 10 world honeymoon destinations) Malathos 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lonely Planet is not exactly a weak kind of source (for those not familiar with it much, it lists numerous high-priced places). It has also been listed as the most expensive rental property for multiple years. But I will find some other references as well. I also strongly contest that being the most expensive hotel does not assert notability. Why not, please? The "please don't include these" examples given in WP:NOT#TRAVEL are examples of trivial facts. Being the most expensive resort in a whole country is not. Ingolfson 06:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep of improved article - as noted above, I dug in a little deeper, and have now multiple references for the existing claims, as well as two major awards that the resort has received. The only thing I have excised is the actual prices, as these, fair enough, tend to change. Notability and verifiability is, I feel, now well-established, and I would ask all previous editors to reconsider their choice. I am still willing to rename it to Eagles Nest (New Zealand) and have it accessed mainly via the disambig, because as noted, there is neither commercial motive nor intention to misdirect. Its just an article that grew out of a trip to Russel two months ago. Cheers all - Ingolfson 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to improvements done already. Bearian 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced for such a short article, with enough evidence of notability.--Huaiwei 09:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sheet[edit]

Hoax article, created by same user as Bed As We Might, another hoax up for AfD. Google searches only turn up sheets of stamps and sheet music. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. If not nonsense, not notable. James Luftan ^contribs 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen this someplace in a humorous movie cliches writeup, but it's definitely not encyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, page has a hoax :o McLarenJAB 14:41, 30 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 It is indeed impossible to judge all these hotels simultaneously (although I have deleted the obvious spam). I'll renominate the rest separately. Pascal.Tesson 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Landmark Hotel[edit]

I believe that these articles go against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. I can understand Raffles Hotel being on WP, as it is a historic building with heritage listing, but these hotels have limited encyclopaedic value, and do not assert of what importance they are. Russavia 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too look like they go against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. None provide any references outside of hotel, opinion, tourist board websites.

Delete. Looks too much like spam, and a three-star rating isn't high enough to make it notable. Clarityfiend 17:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - There are far too many varied articles here to be batch AfD'd. Some are major important hotels and some are architecturally notable, ie The Ritz-Carlton Millenia Singapore. These all need to be separate. --Oakshade 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist separately per above. These articles are far too varying in scope and quality to be bundled into one nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Obenst[edit]

Unsourced, unverifiable, maybe even hoax, from single-edit account: no Google or NewsBank hits. Gordonofcartoon 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete It is not specified what this perosn did to qualify as a 'hero'. Google search comes up blank and he has not been in the local (to Upton) press. I am surprised it failed speedy.• nancy • talk to me • 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were true that he somehow saved lives in the flood, the article might qualify for merging or redirection (or perhaps even keeping). However, with zero google hits it does appear to be a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tagged this article with {{db-bio}} because it has absolutely no assertion of notability, even if the claims are true, and even if the article is rewritten to be encyclopedic. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be quite sad if heroic life saving deeds were not notable (i.e. worthy of note). Fortunately, if genuine, such actions lead almost invariably to media coverage (e.g. Wesley Autrey), and the complete absence of coverage in this case almost certainly suggests it's a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a moral judgment here, and neither does Wikipedia. How many ER surgeons save lives everyday? Or policemen, firemen, EMTs, etc. I think it is a great thing (if this person exists), but Wikipedia notability standards clearly state "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Again, this article makes no assertions of the subject's notability. The sad fact is that coverage is far more existent on those who take lives as opposed to those who save them. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I should avoid sentimentality :). Still, there is a much lower threshold for an assertion of notability for purposes of avoiding speedy deletion than there is for a demonstration of notability in order to survive AfD. Someone engaged in the saving of lives as part of their job would usually not be newsworthy or notable. In contrast, someone who could be termed a hero who saved lives during a national emergency would almost certainly generate some coverage in reliable sources and potentially be notable. As it stands, this one appears to be some kind of personal story, or, more likely, a hoax.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... but MAN we are over-analyzing this lame article. This discussion is probably the most notability this guy will ever get. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. We can debate the ethics and value of lifesaving when he's shown to exist. Gordonofcartoon 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good on him for helping out, but without verification we can't really have an article, can we? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that he exists. Though it would be a shame to delete it if he is real... but maybe that's what they want us to think. McLarenJAB 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony Fox. Bearian 20:32, 31 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. Nom withdrawn. Hadn't seen the billboard thingy. Non-admin closure. Boricuaeddie 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.G. Black y Master Joe[edit]

The article is about a former, not notable reggaeton duo. They have no awards and their discography is also not notable, so they fail WP:MUSIC. Two Google searches show nothing but their song's lyrics, so the article fails WP:V. I say delete.

I am also nominating the duo's albums, as they separately are also not notable:

--Boricuaeddie 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all, clearly a non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Albums seem to be independent (Amazon lists their label as "unknown"). Could be an A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kappa. Not only do they have charting albums, they also have one charting single in the U.S, thus marginally passing WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 3 charting albums. [47] Kappa 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note: That album is for Master Joe, not for the duo. --Boricuaeddie 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. --Boricuaeddie 18:20, 29 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 and protect. --Core desat 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI[edit]

Strong Delete, and prevent recreation until further notice. See WP:CRYSTAL. We had the same exact problem when Saw III was out; people were making articles for Saw IV. Now that Saw IV is coming out, there's an article for the sixth film. This needs to be deleted and protected until the right time occurs. CyberGhostface 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that the sole reference for this article is a website called www.bloody-disgusting.com (see reference in article), which claims to have “multiple sources” for this information, but does not provide the sources. ●DanMS • Talk 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No IMDB or AMG listing, no reliable 3rd party proof. Pretty much Crystal at this time. SkierRMH 06:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't even a Saw V article and it comes first! I would prefer the article to be deleted and re-done after a meaty article has been created for the prequel. — Movie Junkie 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) ^{This originally came from the article's talk page.--CyberGhostface 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

In Addition: The current Saw V page is protected, I feel this page should also be protected too, to stop people creating this page in the near future. — Movie Junkie 10:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, what is the meaning of making it, i think the priority would be to make an article of Saw V instead and delete following page (Saw VI).--Morton Christopher 09:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC) ^{This originally came from the article's talk page. — Movie Junkie 16:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One 04:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Sportswriters Association[edit]

Non-notable publication dealing exclusively with high school sports with only 500 subscribers. Chengwes 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High school sports attract huge media interest in the U.S. New York State has a population of over 20 million. Golfcam 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those 500 subscribers are media and coaches, so circulation #s should be expected to be smaller than say the NY Times. Reliable sources appear to use NYSSA rankings as a gauge for notability [48] , [49]. Canuckle 21:20, 30 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' - G11/A7. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qoof[edit]

Nonnotable website, article written in highly promotional language. Speedied 3 times, now recreated with some independent sources, but they all seem to be PR and the like. NawlinWiki 16:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 or G11 and salt. Not at all a notable site. I've tagged both the images for speedy as they don't have fairuse on them. Page's creator has also been reported to AIV for constant re-creation of this page (after warning). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article DOES have some cites but doesn't read Wiki. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 16:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt this time per WP:CSD#G11. Sources may be independent, but they still don't establish notability (blogs and PR).(edit conflict) —Travis ^talk 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still reads like a PR article. Chengwes 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, non-notable website. Keb25 17:01, 29 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 g4, repost, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARANOiA (2nd nomination). NawlinWiki 16:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PARANOiA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable, re Wikipedia:Notability (music). Oli Filth 15:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this article has been deleted three times in the past. Oli Filth 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4? —Travis^talk 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that it's already been deleted until after I added the AfD tag. I don't think I can just remove it! Oli Filth 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4, recreation of article deleted twice previously —Travis ^talk 16:39, 29 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. Peacent 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca defense[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I like South Park as much as the next person, but I don't think we need an article on this one joke about Johnnie Cochran from the episode "Chef Aid." Wikipedia is not a slang directory and is also not a place to list gags on South Park. The phrase "Chewbacca defense" only refers to the scene on South Park, which is copyrighted. Anything else is simile or metaphor. The non-attributed AP article only briefly mentions the phrase. Slashdot is not a reliable source. Techdirt.com is not a reliable source. What makes Thomas O'Connor and Erin Kenneally reliable sources? A ZDNet blog is not a reliable source. And a Huffington Post blog is not a reliable source. There is already a page on Non sequitur (logic) and Non sequitur (rhetoric). This page should be deleted or merged into the "Chef Aid" article. Also, the numerous redirect pages Argumentum ad chewbaccum and Look at the silly monkey should also be deleted. I think this page would fit just fine on southpark.wikia.com, or everything2, or Urban Dictionary, but not on Wikipedia. It appears to me that most of the pages that link here are due to Template:South_Park and a userbox for South Park fans. The page was previously nominated for deletion on 2003-09-29, 2005-01-16, and 2007-01-28 which is why I named this the (4th nomination). And any votes to keep the article that repeat the joke from the episode should be ignored by the closing admin. Pixelface 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A couple of the sources seem barely reliable enough, and the phrase does seem to have some use in society -- but I'm not finding much more than trivial mentions online, so this one appears to fail WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or merge into Chef Aid. It does seem to have a couple of reliable sources, but it's pretty borderline. Darksun 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into Chef Aid. - Peregrine Fisher 20:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. This is commonly referred to online, people encounter the term and want to know what it means, and that is what Wikipedia is for. Merging into Chef Aid doesn't seem warranted IMO, the concept is usually referred to without that context and it would result in disproportionately large coverage about one concept from the episode within the article about the episode. Bryan Derksen 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for finding out what things mean because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia articles on neologisms require independent sources that are about the term, not just use the term. I have not looked at the article again since the last AFD but it's important that this "that's what Wikipedia is for" business be addressed up front. Otto4711 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this article is a dictionary definition? It's quite clearly more than that, it provides way more information than a dictionary would. Bryan Derksen 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I stated quite clearly what I meant, that Wikipedia is not the place to find definitions. I further said that this term is a neologism and as such there need to be reliable sources that are actually about the term "Chewbacca defense." Sources that merely use the term "Chewbacca defense" do not support the existence of the article because they are not about the term. Otto4711 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to me (and I'm no big SP fan). The sources in the article already establish notability (e.g. the Cochran obit and the various headlines which use the term), and I disagree with the nom's assertions that Slashdot and Techdirt are not reliable sources in this context; 38,000 Ghits, mostly blogs by the looks of things, but indicative of how widely it's pervading pop culture vernacular. Finally, in a previous AfD there was mention of a book about South Park & Philosophy which, according to a review in the Guardian discusses the term in great depth. When people are writing books about it, it's reached our notability threshold. --DeLarge 22:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Chef Aid - there is a limited notability for the subject. It is sourced, it has some notability but it probably doesn't deserve its own article--Cailil ^talk 23:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again. I've heard lawyers use it with alarming regularity. bd2412 T 00:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If someone encounters the term online and wants to know what it means, they can use a search engine or dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang usage guide. Wikipedia should show context, so the term should be left in the Chef Aid article. The Chef Aid episode *may* be notable in part because of the "Chewbacca defense" scene -- which was mentioned in the book South Park & Philosophy and also in the AP article. Jokes and phrases that originated on South Park do not deserve their own encyclopedia articles -- they belong on Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary or a South Park wiki. This phrase is already present on Wiktionary. Much like the article/AFD for "Nigger guy", this article should be a redirect to the episode the term is from. --Pixelface 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Completely agree; a trivial meme spawned from a television episode is not grounds for asserting enecyclopedic notability, nor is "I have heard lawyers using it." Eusebeus 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has RS, barely notable, but squeeks by. the_undertow ^talk 03:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been done to death. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. —Xezbeth 05:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- much though the Cabal dislike it (because they didn't invent it), this has become a notable phrase and a portmanteau for the concept behind it. Notable ergo prima facie keep. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep geez, does this need to always have an AfD? The "usage" section alone shows this has enough notability for a Wikipedia article --L^ie! 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the conclusion of the previous nominations. It seems that no new reasons to delete have surfaced, and so there is no reason to overturn the previous "Keep" results. Furthermore, additional references have been added in the intervening time between AfD's. The case to delete gets weaker and weaker on all fronts. Silly rabbit 12:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I came across this term quite frequently and didn't even know it was referring to South Park until after reading this article. It is a term used completely indepedant of its original source. The examples given above on what will follow are silly. They aren't used in every day articles like this phrase is, here [50], [51] and [52]. There has been 3 failed attempts to delete this article for the same reason. And what point is that reason invalid and turns into a vendetta? Turlo Lomon 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are no new arguements since the previos nominations for deletion. If this were an article solely about the joke in the show, then I would agree with deletion, but I think this is a case where a single joke has transcended the show and become a notable expression as shown by usage of the term per the references provided. In this case, I think it should be kept. Turlo Lomon should add his links to the articleIrishjp 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, Pixelface would like you to believe that this is non notable. And he makes a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed encyclopedia, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a editor defending an article, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep! The defense rests.
But seriously, it's notable. The sources showing its spread in popular culture support that. Will ^(talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as in the context of the episode it's irrelevant, but it has clearly had an significant cultural impact. The Clawed One 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus - never heard the term myself, may be certain US circles only (which makes it less notable)? Stephenb (Talk) 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So we're going to completely ignore the "Usage" section on the article itself, and delete it because you haven't heard of it? -Longing.... 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, we aren't, and I didn't, and that's not why I agree with the Delete (which was per Eusebeus). The comment that the term might not be so notable outside the US is still valid to make, however. Stephenb (Talk)

Comment How so? Notability doesn't change based on Geographic location or language. Wikipedia has enough of an English speaking bias as is, we don't need Wikiffirmative Action to get rid of things that *aren't* notable elsewhere. I mean hell, how is almost any given TV show notable on Wikipedia then? Not very many of them are international. Wikipedia shouldn't be biased for the US, no, but we shouldn't be biased against it either. How are any of the given "* in the United States" articles noteworthy, by your judgment? --Longing.... 14:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to drag me into an argument by using this as a straw man. I've made my point quite clear. Stephenb (Talk) 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - honestly now, I like this article as much as those asking for it to be kept, I laugh myself silly every time I read it. But there are too many "I like it" votes here. Just because "I like it" is not reason enough for this to have its own article. Merging and redirecting to Chef Aid makes sense for an encyclopedic entry. The usage section is lite, if we're going to abide by the spirit and the letter of notability a few mentions in the press and/or internet don't cut it. Either this is a South Park article or it is a trivia article. If its trivia it just doesn't deserve its own article. Full stop. If it's a South Park article it should be merged into Chef Aid--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so you're actually voting against the people voting to keep, and not the article? I'd agree it needs to be in Chef Aid-- if it hadn't far surpassed Chef Aid in terms of notability. The term Chewbacca defense has been used to the point where people that wouldn't have a clue what Chef Aid is know what it means. Look at D'oh!- it's usage outside of the Simpsons is probably even smaller than the term Chewbacca Defense. That doesn't mean it isn't a notable occurrence. As to the second part, at least ten reliable sources, one of which is CNN, including at least one Ph.D and three Juris Doctors are not reliable sources, that show the subject has notability, and is potentially capable of being a recognized legal term? --Longing.... 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not voting against anyone. My vote is, as I said on the spirit and the letter of WP:N; its also in good faith. I'm not denying that there is limited notability here. Nor am I saying that every-one whose saying "keep" is saying "I like it".

The reliable source issue is interesting because if you go through them only 1 (www.techdirt.com) is specifically about the subject. The others mention it in passing - including the Johnny Cochran obituary and the "Case of the Trojan Wookie". At this point it has to be asked what is the scope of the sources and are they non-trivial - in other words is the coverage of the subject serious and in-depth enough for it to have an encyclopedia article of its own? The Juris Doctors presentations use the chewbacca defence as a pop culture reference, to explain a specific use of the plea "mal-ware" in digital crime cases. Also the D'oh preceedent is not neccessarily a grounds for keeping this--Cailil ^talk 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like I said in the nomination, I seriously question whether the sources in the article are reliable. And the CNN reference doesn't mention the term "Chewbacca defense". If you say it's a recognized legal term, you'll have to provide a citation. The Kenneally reference is an unclear Powerpoint presentation. What makes Kenneally a reliable source? The O'Connor reference are uncited course notes that have not been peer-reviewed. So we're left with a mention in an AP article (which merely refers to the Chef Aid episode) and a mention in a book called "South Park & Philosophy" (a book about South Park in general, not just the term) -- even if we accept those sources as reliable, they are not enough sources to warrant an encyclopedia entry for the phrase. We must cite *reliable* secondary sources ABOUT the term, not just articles that USE the term. The term doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for it to actually exist. And as an aside, "D'Oh!" is in the Oxford English Dictionary. --Pixelface 15:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Turlo Lomon. --Naha|^(talk) 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this legal principle. -- But|seriously|folks 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DeLarge. <<-armon->> 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again per comments at previous discussions. Nothing's changed. --- RockMFR 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This nomination does not present anything new and does not make sense, therefore you must acquit. Burntsauce 17:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This isn't an article about the South Park episode or the joke. This is an article about the legal strategy that has been used, or has been alleged to have been used, in real life, in very important cases. The result is that there's more than enough material to create a well-referenced 'usage' section that doesn't even refer to South Park itself. Bastin 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's term that has grown outside the boundaries of the show itself. It can be used like "Neuman!" from Seinfeld (or about 1000 other bits from Seinfeld). --Ubersky 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was all set to delete this one. A darts team in Augusta Chronicle was named Chewbacca defense in 2000. A few writers used it in analogies. However, I looked at the article and see good referencing (at least enough to survive AfD). Coupled with the idea that use of the Chewbacca defense analogy will continue. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense that there would be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" talking about how an eight-foot tall Wookiee would be used as a legal defense. The nominator would have you believe that sources like Poking the Wookie: the Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases, and the chapter "The Chewbacca Defense: A South Park Logic Lesson" in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today don't establish notability. But ladies and gentlemen evaluating this supposed AfD, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must keep. The defense rests. DHowell 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional laws and rules[edit]

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional' laws. The scope of this article is unmanagably large and serves no useful purpose. Would be more useful if it only included fiction that incorporated a fictional law as a core theme or plot device, but even then it would be a stretch. Unencyclopedic content, unmanageable scope, zero utility. /Blaxthos 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #1: delete all useless and unmaintainable lists without mercy. Rule #2: sentence their authors to the pillory on the largest public square in town. Rule #3: Spray the words "List of" with repellent and cover them with bear traps and land mines to discourage further interest. --Targeman 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and an arbitrary list. - Cyborg Ninja 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:IINFO, also a failure of WP:V. Definitely a non-notable intersection here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- pure listcruft. --Boricuaeddie 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research and, theoretically, could get full of laws made up one day in school. Useight 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why tbings like the Prime Directive and the Three Laws of Robotics can't be grouped together. I'd like to know some of their non-English equivalents. Kappa 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the article does little that couldn't be accomplished by a category, there is no sense in which this is OR; there is no novel position being taken or advanced on the basis of the list. WP:OR is so overused and misapplied as a critique that any nomination for deletion on its basis needs to be looked at skeptically. RandomCritic 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no objective relationship between all of these items beyond the (unspoken) relationship that almost all of these "rules" come from fantasy/gaming/science fiction sources. In other words, one can infer that this is a fandom collection of items that are all familiar to the authors but have no other relationship. Not precisely OR except to the extent that the authors may have based criteria on "if you like this genre concept, you may also like these others", but lacking any scholarly work on the subject of "the prevalence of theoretical rulesets in fiction" (or some such), there doesn't appear to be any argument for linking all of these exclusive items under one list. -Markeer 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list can grow to infinite size and is not neccesary. The Placebo Effect 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this why there're categories?

132.205.44.5 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but the category can't explain anything about them, in particular which work of fiction something comes from. Kappa 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even fictional laws have their adherents. Obedience to a fictional law is optional, but they're often worth citing as an expression of someone's notion of what should be public policy. The "Prime Directive" is a, well, prime example; and, in fact, arguably influences perceptions on what to tolerate in other cultures. While I doubt that any of these would become legislation, the ideas that they represent are worth noting. Mandsford 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mandsford: If someone published an article about what fictional laws suggest as wish-fulfillment on the part of certain authors, in any peer reviewed journal of Psychology, Sociology, Literature or Political Science, I would certainly think that citation could add to an article. However, lacking any such citation to a secondary source, speculation on the significance of these laws is just that: speculation. I agree that there is certainly room for research on the subject you describe, I just don't think Wikipedia is the place to do, or present, that research. -Markeer 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly explained. Bravo. /Blaxthos 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bed As We Might[edit]

Likely hoax; creator wrote that the subject is "popular, but nearly unknown," and another editor added Template:Hoax after noting that the title is not found on IMDB or Google. BassoProfundo 13:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax and patent nonsense. No google or imdb hits whatsoever. —Travis ^talk 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. How could something be popular, yet "nearly" unknown? James Luftan ^contribs 17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh at the oxymoron “...popular, but nearly unknown movie”, then delete as non-notable and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanMS (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2007

My apologies for neglecting to sign, and thanks to TravisTX for adding the {{unsigned}} tag. ●DanMS • Talk 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails to assert notability, unsourced, and should probably be considered patent nonsense. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no IMDB or AMG listing, zippo on the ghits as well. Smells hoaxiful to me :) SkierRMH 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like hoax, per above. RaNdOm26 10:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One line? Sheer laziness. McLarenJAB 14:32, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depictions of God in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Nominated once previously for deletion and kept because of the earnest protestations that it could be "cleaned up." Said "clean up" did not happen and the article remains another laundry list trivia dump directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Actually, the last AfD debate also showed evidence of a consensus for deletion, and probably should have been closed as delete as well. The problem with this article, to put it simply, is that God is present in so much of our cultural works, in some form, that we can certainly consider God to be part of pop culture. But, at the same time, this makes it less and less interesting to try to list specific examples: such examples are potentially limitless. Of course, there might be potential for a real article on this subject, but this is not the start of such an article. Mango juice^talk 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on we can certainly consider God to be part of pop culture? You can do it on my talk page if you wish - interesting idea. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Messy, pointless and random. Beyond hope of redemption. Golfcam 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should have an article on this topic, but this isn't it, and this isn't even a basis for it. JulesH 22:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another one of those unsourced trivia-filled IPC articles.--JForget 23:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia. Will ^(talk) 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess a lightning bolt is coming at me, but I see nothing silly or blasphemous about this article. George Burns, Morgan Freeman, and others have portrayed God, and there's a wide leeway in popular culture for depicting something that few of us have actually seen. Not as common as the portrayal of Heaven in pop culture (which is itself fascinating), but how a film producer chooses to represent the Almighty says a lot about his or her own cultural influences. I'll hate to see this one go. Mandsford 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Crazytales▼▼(talk) 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional astronauts[edit]

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional astronauts. These sort of articles have no utilitarian or encyclopedic value; the scope of this article is so broad that it is unmaintainable and useless. We're not a collection of everything that ever was (especially when dealing with fiction, or "things that never were, but someone imagined"). /Blaxthos 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a well-organized, well-maintained and reasonably comprehensive list, with clearly defined parameters (it is not "indiscriminate"), which is relevant to a real research topic: the presentation of the astronaut as a fictional archetype. There is no good reason for deleting this list. We have on Wikipedia lists of fictional doctors, fictional scientists, fictional Presidents and Vice Presidents, computers, diseases, schools, newspapers, spaceships et cetera. Why not a list of fictional astronauts? RandomCritic 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that you are the primary author of the article. ;-) /Blaxthos
Noted that you are the nominator of the article. In other words, this is not an argument. His opinion is as good as yours. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I see nothing wrong with authors defending their own articles. I've done it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TenPoundHammer about editors defending articles they started, except it must be taken into consideration that articles are no longer their own. Useight 00:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was never to give the impression that anyone's opinion is less valuable than another, but rather that people shepharding/authoring articles often may tend to ignore the rules in favor of stuff they like. /Blaxthos 16:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the "author"; I did not create the article. I'm just one of several editors. No rules have been ignored; however, there seems to be a mania for inventing "rules" that don't exist, misinterpreting existing rules, and mistaking essays for policy. RandomCritic 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me try again. You're the editor with the most number of edits to the article. Besides that, I think this article becomes a problem of scope, WP:RS, and WP:OR. How are you deciding what is an astronaut? How come Jean Luc Picard isn't mentioned? Or Chewbacca? It becomes very hard to maintain a list about fictional astronauts when there is little operationalization of the term and the people in question don't exist. My major point is that this is horribly incomplete (at best), and an unreferenced pile of sci-fi references at worst. I doubt anyone is ever going to search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts", and I don't see any analysis of the "astronaut archetype" (this is, after all, a list; such would be violating WP:OR anyway). /Blaxthos 16:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how many edits I have made. A great many of them have been cosmetic, relating to the shape of the tables and the ordering of material. However, as nominator has already conceded that this is an irrelevant point, I don't see why he is pushing it.

While being an editor of the article may be held to compromise my objectivity, it has this advantage: I know the shape and scope of the article a lot better than nominator. Had nominator bothered to read the talk page of the article, he would have seen there set out a specific set of criteria for inclusion. There is no problem of scope, and "what is an astronaut" is clearly defined, to wit:
- A "fictional astronaut" is a space traveller appearing in works of fiction who is:
  1. Human
  
  2. On a flight originating from Earth
  
  3. Living during the early Space Age, i.e. between the beginnings of real space travel and the near future (say c. 1960-2020).
And for marginal cases there are the following preferred criteria:
- 4. Part of a real space program (like NASA) or a fictional knockoff of the same.
  
  5. Preferably using space travel technology within the realm of the possible. Preference should be given to astronauts depicted using real technology (e.g. Apollo, Soyuz, Space Shuttle) or close fictional knockoffs of the same.
That is why you don't see Chewbacca or Jean-Luc Picard. The list is, within its stated boundaries, if not perfectly complete then at least containing most of the major works in which fictional astronauts appear.

Of course there is no "analysis". This is a list. What I said was that this kind of list is relevant to someone doing research, e.g., on the presentation of astronauts in various media. And yes, people do search wikipedia for "List of fictional astronauts"; the fact that nominator isn't one of them is irrelevant. Nominator further claims that the list is "unmaintainable" -- a claim proven false by the fact that the list both has been and continues to be maintained. In short, every one of nominator's claims is either untrue or not grounds for deletion.RandomCritic 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, currently, there appears to be a sort of "hype" of nominating lists for deletion, whereas lists are valuable parts of this encyclopedia as they have many advantages over categories (e.g. allowing redlinks, references, sorting other than A-Z and table-like formatting). This particular article certainly is not "indiscrimate", there are obvious criteria for inclusion. Neither are "unmaintainable and useless" arguments for deletion. The second is just an opinion of the nominator, the first is also true for many articles in Wikipedia that wouldn't dare delete and therefore certainly not policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Who cares about fictional astronauts? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate and arbitrary and potentially limitless. Loosely associated directory. Not seeing the point of trying to list everything that has a fictional astronaut in it, nor am I understanding the rationale in the selection of these fictional astronauts and not others, nor why some characters in space are considered "astronauts" while other characters in space are not (see Moonraker, which lists Bond and Goodhead but not Drax or Jaws for example) nor what it is this list of characters is supposed to tell us about fictional astronauts, the medium in which they appear, their relation to each other or the real world. An actual verified article on how the representation of astronauts has changed pre- and post-space race would no doubt be fascinating. This list of random astronauts is not. Otto4711 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment on your "relation to the each other or the real world". When I first created the entry for the astronauts from the novel Voyagers, I had this line as part of a rather lengthy description: "Stoner's ride, as the first American on a Soyuz, predates Norm Thagard's actual trip on Soyuz TM-21 by 14 years." Do you feel that inclusions like this improve the article? Thanks. --EarthPerson 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See notes above. The list is not indiscriminate. The criteria are perhaps "arbitrary" but no more so than the definition of the word astronaut itself. The list is potentially limitless, but only insofar as people may continue to publish books or shoot films with astronaut characters. There is nothing "random" about the list, although it is doubtless missing a number of less-well known works; however, lists are always works in progress and do not need to be complete to be included in Wikipedia. The essential quality a list needs to have is strong criteria for inclusion, which this list possesses. RandomCritic 16:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essential quality that an article needs to have is meeting all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A list may be perfectly formatted per WP:LIST and still be unacceptable for not adhering to other policies and guidelines. You have not addressed the associational issues with this article, namely, that the things on the list have nothing in common beyond including a spaceman. Otto4711 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A spaceman of the space age--87.227.77.85 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional spaceman of the space age. /Blaxthos 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last criticism by Otto4711 happens to be untrue; the items listed are fictions about human exploratory space travel in one way or another (rather naturally). However, as this is a List of fictional astronauts, then of course the common thread is going to be the presence of a fictional astronaut. Commenter suggests, via nebulous references to "associational issues", that this isn't a valid criterion for a list. Given that Wikipedia contains many other lists of fictional people by occupation, and given that the category astronaut is itself quite notable and distinctive (much more so, I should say, than "doctor" or "scientist"), the criticism lacks strength. RandomCritic 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has other lists like it is unpersuasive. I note that any number of similar lists (under a title like "___ in popular culture") have been or are about to be deleted for the same WP:NOT#DIR concerns that aren't being addressed here. The notability or distinctiveness of real astronauts is irrelevant to whether this article should stand or fall. The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that the association between, for instance, fictional astronaut Victor Caroon from "The Quatermass Experiment" is in any way related to, say, fictional spy-who-happened-to-go-into-space James Bond from Moonraker or that either of them is in any way related to fictional astronauts Homer Simpson or Barney Gumble. What do these astronauts, drawn from across multiple media and multiple genres, tell us about being a fictional astronaut, or portraying a fictional astronaut, or about the media or genre from which they are drawn, or each other, or the world? Otto4711 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The criteria seem fairly definite to me, and the list isn't going to become unmanageably long. I don't see a burning need for it, but I haven't seen a strong argument for deletion. Clarityfiend 17:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not at all arbitrary, and it is not WP:OR either. - Cyborg Ninja 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was just in need of the title to a particular story, for professional reasons, and all I had to go on was the name of one character, and the fact that an alien spacecraft and a soyuz were involved. And, hey presto! - there's the title, first up on Wikipedia. Which startled me. In a good way. One can never tell *what* seemingly valueless chunk of information, may suddenly be vitally useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.40.149 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 July 2007
Keep. Fictional astronauts seem to be a notable topic to me, and therefore I see no reason not to have a list of them. Enough information is included in the list that organisation as a category would not work as well. Seems like a prime example of what a list should be used for. JulesH 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH reasoning. A category of this would lead to numerous stubs that most likely would not qualify as articles. And yes, I'm a sometime contributor to this list. --EarthPerson 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been reading The Return by Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes, and it occurs to me that most fictional astronauts are portrayed with the input of persons knowledgable about the topic. Along the way, we are (subversively) taught lessons about physics, astronomy, and other science that we normally would not have learned in school. The article makes an excellent navigation tool for those instances. Mandsford 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious A7 (non-notable bio). ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Giannobile[edit]

Does not meet criteria in WP:BIO. This may be more appropriate for MySpace. Ground Zero | t 13:28, 29 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 (G7). —David Eppstein 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Morales (Australian designer, artist)[edit]

Not notable person, Does not pass WP:BIO and it is spam user that created it is same person as subject. ExtraDry 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, numerous Google searches turn up nothing relevant. Article was created and heavily edited by User:Victormorales, which is not a reason for deletion in and of itself, but is certainly worrying. I doubt that the relevant WP:RS can be found. Lankiveil 13:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 13:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep under WP:SNOW given the nomination has been withdrawn and the article improved by User:Yellowdesk. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in music[edit]

Chock to the brim with crystalballery and rumourmongering. Only 12 entries in the entire list are referenced. I don't honestly think that the article/list is worth saving in its present state. Currently, it only serves as a hoaxer/sneaky vandal magnet. Kurt Shaped Box 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is jumping the gun by a long way. --Malcolmxl5 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs to be re-written and sourced, but it's no different from films that are expected to be released next year (IE in just over 5 months time). Saying it's a vandal magnet doesn't hold water, otherwise we might as well close Wikipedia fullstop. Lugnuts 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malcolmxl5. - Cyborg Ninja 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete all of the unsourced statements/listings, which I have just now done. -- Yellowdesk 18:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure about speculation, but let's just keep the article just in case a user wants to add a confirmed album (or something) by a band that could release a new album next year, although we still almost got five months before 2008 happens. Alex 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as only sourced information is allowed. T Rex | talk 19:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's almost 2008 already. Golfcam 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks to the efforts of the two editors today, the article is now in a much better and more manageable state (cheers guys!). May I withdraw my AFD nomination? --Kurt Shaped Box 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, only those which is confirmed and sourced should stay, which is the case right now. So I have no problem with this article.--JForget 23:05, 29 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. --Core desat 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xerosun[edit]

Article about a band written by themselves. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no. The refs do not show significant independent coverage. Unsigned band with a myspace, does not meet notability guidelines, and the conflict of interest concerns me. A single purpose account who haven't read guidelines [53]. Darrenhusted 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:MUSIC at this point. There are no reliable sources indicating they're getting independent coverage, their output thus far is self-released EPs, and the music contest might have been good if they had won, but they didn't. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are added to assert WP:MUSIC. User:Xerosun states at Talk:Xerosun that they intend to do so, but then there's also a clear conflict of interest here... MartinBrook ^talk 16:03, 30 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. There are strong arguments for deletion that don't seem to be addressed by those arguing to keep. No reliable sources have been presented to show verifiability. --Core desat 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a second nomination; the first nomination was closed as Keep, even though there were pretty strong arguments for deletion. The subject of the article is a constructed language, which fails notability guidelines (WP:N). I can understand that the subject may seem worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia to enthusiasts of conlangs, such as Esperanto or Novial. However, Esperanto has its own culture with many thousands of speakers and activists; it also has its own literature and music scene. Novial, while not as popular as Esperanto, is the creation of a notable linguist, Otto Jespersen. Slovio, on the other hand, seems to be a project which is developed and used only on http://www.slovio.com and the related family of websites - http://www.slavsk.com/ , http://www.panslavia.com/ , http://www.zvestia.com/ and a few others, which all look very similar, as if they were designed by the same person. I found it mentioned on a few blogs, but i couldn't find that it is used by anyone for actual communication. I couldn't find any other significant primary sources for it (see also Talk:Slovio#Usage and validity of external links). Amir E. Aharoni 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment/context - The page on the language's creator, Mark Hucko, survived an AfD on 7 Mar 07. An article on another of his inventions, Multi-level Cosmology, was speedy-deleted by author request and community consensus in Feb 07. What I get from those two discussions is that there's something similar to a walled garden built around a "polymath" and his various inventions. So, while I'd be okay with a keep if someone can provide an assertion of notability from an external source that does not accept submissions from people promoting their own invented language, I'm not sure we can find it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I'm not a great fan of Slovio myself, I still don't think Slovio's notability as a constructed language can be denied. Granted, the primary websources for it are most clearly related and probably the worik of one and the same person. That, however, is not an argument for deletion; all it means is that the language is well-marketed. Googling for Slovio turns up 159,000 hits. Among these are not only the aforementioned websites and references to wikipedia articles, but also numerous mentionings on other places. I don't have the time to delve for press articles and the like, but I am aware of a few scientific references and press articles. Besides, let's face it, Slovio is very well-known. It does have a community of speakers and is probably the most successful international auxiliary language ever created during the last 30 years or so. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, but you do have to "delve for press articles and the like", because without them the article is absolutely worthless. And the press articles that you find must not look like "press releases" saying that Slovio is a constructed language created by Mark Hucko and that anyone who knows any Slavic language can easily understand it.

159,000 Google hits by themselves prove nothing. I have yet to see any proof that anyone actually wrote anything in Slovio without simply copying examples from slovio.com . --Amir E. Aharoni 09:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout this? http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/tilman.berger/Publikationen/BergerPlansprachen.pdf Published, scientific, and in German! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know German so well, but i understand that this is a summary of several projects whose aim is creating a constructed languages on a Slavic basis. From what i understood Slovio is regarded the most important of those projects because it has the biggest network of websites that support it and have their own domains (not free hosting like geocities.com). The problem is that those websites are all inter-related and look as they are just parts of one big website.

The part in this German paper with the details about Slovio (page 4 ff.) mostly quotes the slovio.com website and presents quotes in Latin and Cyrillic Slovio copied from it. The author of the paper is not even sure who Hucko is - he writes "scientist and linguist" in double quotes.

However, i may have missed something. Does it present anything else that proves that Slovio is actually used anywhere else except that family of websites? --Amir E. Aharoni 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio is used, that much I know. I've no idea how many actual users there are, probably no more than 100 or so, but that is pretty impressive for an IAL anyway. Keep in mind that only Esperanto, Interlingua and Ido can boast a number of >1000 users. Even a language like Volapük has only 25 speakers or so.

BTW, a few other links: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Slovio/ (I don't know if this is of any use here) and http://www.obywatel.org.pl/_old/index.php?menu=1&curnumer=21 . The latter appear to be a Polish magazine, feature an article under the title Gdy Slovio staje się ciałem by Bartosz Chrząszczak. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, Polish ... I learnt it very well when i visited Poland 17 years ago, but forgot it a bit. Here's what i can make of that article without a dictionary: "Może już za kilkanaście lat powstaną pierwsze telewizyjne kanały informacyjne, filmowe i muzyczne z programami w języku Slovio." = "Maybe in a few years there will be established informational, musical and movie TV channels with programs in Slovio language." Just like the article says: Maybe. When that happens, Slovio surely will deserve its place in Wikipedia. But today Wikipedia cannot be the only reference on this language except slovio.com. That's what Langmaker is for.

As for the websters-online-dictionary link - see my comment at Talk:Slovio#Usage and validity of external links.

Until there is any proof, i consider this language to be used by nobody except the guy who wrote the slovio.com family of websites.

Slovio is nowhere near Esperanto or even Ido in notability. 1000 is just the number of denaskuloj and many thousands of other people learned it as a second language. There are Esperanto groups in many countries and a significant body of literature in and about it. Esperanto has many flaws, but its notability is absolutely undeniable and absolutely incomparable to Slovio's. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir, I guess this means that one of the argumnts you're making for this article's deletion is "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day"? I'm just trying to clarify your position. For me personally, if I knew more about that Polish article, and saw other articles like it, perhaps I'd be satisfied of Slovio's notability - though, then again, perhaps I'm wrong because a language can't be notable if nobody speaks it except the author. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - WP:MADEUP is certainly one of my arguments.

That Polish article is very short (at least from what i can read online). It is not about Slovio - it is about multi-national television networks and their influence on culture. Al-Jazeera is one of the examples there, but i don't think that being mentioned in the same sentence with Al-Jazeera is by itself a proof of Slovio's notability. Much more articles like it could change my mind though.

The interesting question is where did the writer of the Polish article first found out Slovio. I suspect that he - like us - may be an Internet enthusiast and that he just found out about it on Wikipedia. This article has existed here since 2002 and that may have done the damage by making it more popular! And it also appears in {{Slavic languages}}, which may have made the damage even worse. This doesn't mean that the damage should go on being made. --19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it a little, and decided that the work done on Slovio is probably too complicated and thorough to be simply categorized as WP:MADEUP. A dictionary of several thousands of words was certainly not made up in one day.

Nevertheless, it badly fails the tests for sourcing, verifiability and notability. --Amir E. Aharoni 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no real references that demonstrate its notability. fraggle 11:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some thoughts: Slovio is probably the best-known Slavic constructed language but I haven't seen much activity from it lately and if you look at the main page for the language a lot of the links have now disappeared and lead to nowhere. If the author really is notable it might be best to delete the page and merge it into his. If not then his page should be nominated for deletion as well. There's also that tiny Slavopedia project page on Metawiki to think about, also written in Slovio. Last thought on the matter: I doubt any of the IAL Wikipedias (Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua) will ever delete a page on some of the IALs being deleted here, so if they all vanish on the English version (and other Wikipedias) it'll be an IAL itself that'll have to be read in order to get information about these languages. Mithridates 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mithridates - thanks for your comment. I am aware of the Slavopedia on meta and also of the fact that this article here has many interwiki links. I'll deal with them in due time. This is not to say that i am waiting for this article to be deleted so i'd be able to tell all the other Wikipedias: "Hey, this was deleted from en-wiki, so you must delete it too." I actually wouldn't mind if this article will not be deleted - but someone would have to provide really good proof of notability.

I think that there were precedents of articles about conlangs that were deleted from conlang Wikipedias, but i can't recall an example. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is similarly a discussion for deletion of the article on the author, [54] and I see this unfortunately ending in a decision to delete both of them--there seems to be material to support one article, merging the one into the other. I hope th closing is coordinated. Of the two, I think there material is better here. DGG (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - DGG, I always respect the opinions you provide at AfD. I still haven't made a vote yet. Though, if Mark Hucko's claim to fame is that he made some things up, and if Slovio is one of the things he made up and has no notability except for how much he promotes it, why not delete both? I beg those people who state that "Slovio is a well-known constructed language" to please take a minute to put some external independent third-party verifiable references in the article, so that we could see them and end this discussion - if that's what we should be doing. I wouldn't like to delete an article on a notable subject, especially when the subject's creator's article is also being deleted - but I also don't believe Wikipedia's about taking someone's word for it without verification. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I think the use of Slovio in Slavopedia might qualify this as "notable"; if any pidgin spoken by a few hundred islanders in the Pacific, with no established literature, is notable, then why not this too? I may still change my vote, though. Must check to make sure more than one person has contributed to Slavopedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are fair and careful, but bear in mind that reference to a sister project is against WP:SELF. I have to agree that it does prove that a couple of people wrote a few lines of Slovio by themselves - User:Kpjas and ru:User:Ramir. I asked for their opinions.

Anyway, it's really hard to accept this as the only reference. --Amir E. Aharoni 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with bending the rules for topic categories that have very little supporting them, in the interest of doing no harm. If it smells like something that could satisfy notability guidelines for something in that category, that is; this is starting to acquire a good smell. If only 3 people have learned it well enough to post messages in it, that's good for me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the inclusion of Slovio in Category:Slavic languages and a link to it from {{Slavic languages}} is harm. Wikipedia is the only important website where people interested in Slavic languages can find out about Slovio, so my guess - until someone proves the opposite - is that most of the (few) people who did discover Slovio, discovered it on Wikipedia. This would be OK, if the existence of Slovio would also be published beforehand in some obscure, but scientific magazine, but i am not sure that it ever happened.

IJzeren Jan posted a link to a paper in German, which looks like it was published in a scientific magazine. That paper is from 2004, according to the PDF properties. It cites slovio.com as the source (unless i missed something else - i don't know German well), but the guy who wrote could have discovered it through Wikipedia. If that indeed happened, it makes the whole thing even worse.

Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place where such ideas are published.

The fact that the article exists since 2002 doesn't make the article more legitimate, but it does make the harm in its existence worse and harder to reverse. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place where such ideas are published." - too true, and you won't find anyone who hates the use of Wikipedia as a promo tool any more than me. But, it's happened. And also, true that someone should try to offer some independent sources here! I might still change my vote to delete if that doesn't happen. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not acquainted with a Slavic based international auxiliary languate (or "artificial language"). As with Esperanto, genuine linguist-created languages are notable, and an aid to other linguists. No reason to delete this. Mandsford 01:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no proof whatsoever that its creator actually is a certified linguist - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hucko (2nd nomination).

Also see above for reasons that this language cannot be compared to Esperanto, even though Zamenhof was not a linguist.

There's a good place for non-notable artificial language - Langmaker. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder Neutral opinion. --Dweller 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested that the AfD on Hucko himself is closed as premature, pending the conclusion of this AfD. If this is closed as nn / delete, it would make keep comments at that AfD difficult to justify and I'd be happy if Hucko was prodded. If this AfD is closed as keep once more, I think it would significantly impact on editors' opinions regarding Hucko's notability. Having both processes parallel makes things murky. To keep matters centralised, please comment on this at the Hucko AfD, rather than here. --Dweller 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more fair for Amir to withdraw this AfD (under WP:SNOW or whatever). After all, by his own assertion, there is less proof of the existence of Hucko than there is proof of the existence of Slovio. Also, his argument that Wikipedia doesn't present any independent proof of Hucko's existence puts the Hucko article on very shaky ground, I think. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Google turns up only 13 results for "slavio constructed language"(with out inverted commas), to distinguish from "slavio" which yields 300,000+. Though, I do question what has changed since the lastm nomination, and the principle of "stare decisis" implies that a decision that has already been made should be let to stand.martianlostinspace 21:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this possibly be because you have misspelled "Slovio" as "Slavio"? Liam Proven 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, idea, but no... [55] martianlostinspace ^{email me} 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When correcting your "slavio" to "slovio", then Google turns up more than 3,100 results — that's about 6 times as much as the same search turns out for Novial, more than 3 times as much as for Ido, 5 times as much as for Volapük, etc. — so Slovio certainly is one of the more well-known constructed languages in the world. Please don't try to jinx your results. From my own experience I would not say that it's more popular than Ido or Volapük, but definitely more so than, say, Novial or Solresol. The mere fact that there are hardly and independent sources online or printed cannot be the sole reason for deleting this entry. Where does this anti-conlang hype come from, all of a sudden?! If you'd let some experts on constructed languages decide, no sane expert would exclude Slovio because it's "non-notable" (which it is not, by definition). Will write more tomorrow... — N-true 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is notable, scholarly, detailed and refers to something generally known from other places and sources. Liam Proven 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What other places and sources? --Amir E. Aharoni 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undistinguished personal project, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let Hucko do his self-promotion on his own website. Friday (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your judgement is on the base of your thinking that Mark Hucko has created and written the article on his own. This is, obviously, not the case. So your statement doesn't make much sense. It could, if at all, be related to the article Mark Hucko only. — N-true 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaymation[edit]

Non-notable "subgenera". Google brings up only 102 hits, mostly clips on video sites. Oli Filth 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mainly lists. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I post here or in the "discussion"? I'm highly confused as there is little discussion at all and I'm finding it very frustrating when this is a valid term used in the lgbt community and has a timestam of 5+ years in printed matter. Sadly, little is documented on Gaymation (gay animation) and the very reason for a Wiki entry is simply to have a base location for factual information documenting the history of Gaymation (gay animation). Sappyhucks 14:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, then verifiable, independent, reliable sources should be cited from within this article, to back up this assertion. Oli Filth 14:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They have been added via request - I would like to also add, based on there being very little documented, the fact finding process is not going to be an over night process. Is this going to become my next issue in a deletion string should Gaymation survive the current deletion nomination? Sappyhucks 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the article can clean up. I'm inclined to call WP:NEO. All it does is really define the term and list animations and/or full films in this subgenre. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't get this article. It's clearly a neologism and In my opinion doesn't meet the criteria for being an article so I'll say it should be probably deleted. 102 google hits isn't nearly enough for notability IMO. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this definitely falls under WP:NEO - it isn't in common use, and doesn't appear to be getting enough coverage or discussion to meet WP:RS. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:16, 30 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. CitiCat^♫ 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effort Value[edit]

Seems to lack notability, unencyclopedic subject. The sunder king 11:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Targeman 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge - Onnaghar (Talk) 12:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon game mechanics. Gaiacarra 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is worth merging, but could replace with a redirect to the mechanics page, which already covers this in more encyclopedic tone. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of fictional things[edit]

WP:NOT - This has got to be the apex of "indiscriminate information". Personal disdain for "list of" articles aside, this one has no hope of ever being complete or useful. It appears to be mostly a "list of list of articles", but I don't see any utility in having an article with such an unimaginable scope. Many, many editors have noted on the talk page the lunacy of this article (though I believe this is the first nomination for deletion). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything that's ever been (or, most especially, a list of things that have never been!). Blaxthos 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum - should we note this on WP:BJAODN ? /Blaxthos 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1 and warn the author. Fictionality of characters or events in films or books is easy to establish by legal disclaimers, but things are practically uncheckable with regard to "fictionality". -- Futurano 12:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. Like Blaxthos, I can't stand listcruft but this takes the cake! It should be included in the BJAODN Hall of Fame. I think it's unlikely any piece of listcruft will ever top this unless it's a List of everything. --Targeman 12:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask and Ye Shall Receive - ZEROpumpkins 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't beieve it either While sceptic to the indiscriminate deletion of lists, this is the very reason we have the problem.--Victor falk 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't see any merits in this. --Malcolmxl5 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Ach du lieber! This article's been around since 2004? How'd it last that long? Listcruft, redundant, unmaintainable. Blueboy 96 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004?! Holy Γʊçж1ʌζ §#!+ !!! O.o --Targeman 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this three years ago. Ugh, how did this slip through the cracks for so long? Completely ridiculous. - RPIRED 15:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per everyone above. Fictional things?!? How more vague can you get?! Kill it per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO -- maybe even an A3 (consists of only links elsewhere). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But if it's been in the system three years, it seems a little inappropriate to warn the author. Pure chutzpah and effort almost make me want to vote keep. But there's no WP:GRAVITAS category. Mystery Meat 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice. This is a list that can conceivably have anything added to it. My God, make this list go away! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Ok, so how many of the people arguing for deletion have actually looked at this list? This is not a list of fictional things, but an organizational page linking to other existing lists and categories. You may question whether or not any of those things merit articles on their own, or the desirability of trying to use this as an index to existing pages, but this is not what it seems to be that people are objecting to. There is no way this is nonsense, and I strongly suggest folks who are arguing for its deletion carefully consider what this list is about. It's organizational in nature, not content-based. Nonsense is for other things entirely. This is at most a bad idea because of the difficulty of doing it right. And warning the author? It's appropriate warn for vandalism and POVness. Also for disruptive behavior. Warning here would imply there was something harmful with this page. Thank you, but no, let's not admonish folks when if anything, the only action warranted is a polite expression of concern over scope. Save your warnings for things that actively hurt Wikipedia. Not to mention the problem with warning the dozens of editors who have contributed to this page. I doubt User:Litefantastic cares anyway, having decided to leave Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copy of Category:Lists of fictional things Corpx 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to contributors to this AFD. Most of the comments posted here seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Comments like “unbelievable”, “ugh”, “ridiculous”, and “Holy Γʊçж1ʌζ §#!+ !!!” are not legitimate reasons for deletion of an article. Please provide basis for your opinions based on Wikipedia policy. Thank you. ●DanMS • Talk 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:NOT. The scope of this article is unimaginably huge and will never be satisfied. I have a book which attempts to categorize all possible fields of science, and it's an 800-page monster. The idea that it's possible to list all fictitious things that have ever existed (BTW, are the fictitious human beings listed "things" as well?) is preposterous, even if it's just a list of lists. And if we accept a list of lists, we'll have to accept a List of all lists that list lists. And it's pretty amazing that this has eluded editors for 3 years. --Targeman 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "The idea that it's possible to list all fictitious things that have ever existed " reflects a misunderstanding of this list. It isn't that. It's an index to certain lists on Wikipedia. The two are not the same. I suggest you strike your comment and replace it with one that indicates an understanding of the actual purpose of this page. FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear not for my understanding. I know what the intent of this article is, but I fail to see its usefulness; it's already an oversized link index to only marginally interconnected subjects. Do you really imagine that someone reading about unicorns will think 'Hey, while I'm at it, I'll check out some fictional restaurants because they're fiction, too? Imagine an article like Lists of blue things where you can find links to Smurfs, the sky, cornflower and blueprints. A useful navigation tool? --Targeman 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I do imagine that a person seeking to examine the lists of fictional things on Wikipedia might find it helpful to have a single list of pages to examine in order to see what's there or not. I know I certainly find such indexes helpful when I'm browsing subjects. Your example is irrelevant. There aren't any lists of anything by color as far as I know, thus no need to index them. FrozenPurpleCube 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Targeman. Perhaps the recoil reaction to this article is based more on an incredibly blatant example of WP:NOT that has existed for a Wiki-eon than anything else. That doesn't make my reaction or anyone else's reaction WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How many times are we supposed to repeat "WP:NOT," especially in a WP:SNOW situation? - RPIRED 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to repeat it at all. AFD is not a question of by the numbers, but rather by the strength of the arguments involved. As far as it goes, the vast majority of the positions represented here in this discussion aren't very strong, but rather uncivil or even frivolous. It doesn't make for a stronger case when you say things like "I can't stand listcruft but this takes the cake! It should be included in the BJAODN Hall of Fame." or "this three years ago. Ugh, how did this slip through the cracks for so long? Completely ridiculous." . All that tells me is you're making an emotional reaction, instead of evaluating the article on its own merits, and considering it appropriately. Examples of reasonable arguments would be something like what Corpx said. That's reasonable. But as a navigational tool, it's hardly appropriate to call this list ridiculous. So, maybe you should just strike your earlier comments? FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a case to be made for deleting the article as redundant to a category, but it is not a violation of WP:NOT. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's an internal navigation guide within Wikipedia. Many people seem to assume that it contains just random "fictional things", which admittedly the name seems to suggest. But a look at the actual article indicates something quite different. Given that Wikipedia is so large, the production of navigation aids that relate similar articles and topics is to be commended.RandomCritic 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom and I would say delete ASAPJForget 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. It's true that it is a list of lists, but I think it'd be possible to categorize this stuff as long as we don't allow things made up in school one day and try to avoid original research. Useight 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the title must be bad, because it seems to have been misread by some of the early comments as if this were a list of things.. its not. It's a perfectly valid organizational article giving a list of wikipedia articles in a more organized way than a category would. I see no OR whatsoever. There's no research, just the assemblage of the appropriate WP articles. DGG (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Strong delete There is no accusation of OR. There is accusation of this, this and this, though. I agree with the deletion sentiment, seeing as this is a very clear example of what does not belong on Wikipedia, it is an unnecessary collection of vaguely related items (how about 'Lists of non-fictional things'? There wouldn't even be a debate!) and has no purpose that categories can not fill much better. Lists are sprawling and quickly outdated -- categories are made for the purpose of archiving and indexing fictional things, amongst others. --Joffeloff 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplicates a category and "fictional things" is possibly the best example of too broad a criteria that I have encountered in 3 years of editing. 23skidoo 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get the feeling that Blaxthos actually finds this list useful in making other nominations for today. Ironic that you want to delete it, since it appears to have been of help. Hard to vote for keep, since I think that there's a category that lists articles of fictional "things". Mandsford 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issue raised, and not the actions of the nominator. FTR I'll gladly nominate any list I find that doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion (especially of this caliber). So are we to take that as a delete, then? /Blaxthos 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, gladly... Mandsford 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, better organized than the category. An incredible array of retarded excuses to delete this have been offered, maybe people should try actually looking at this thing before they give a reason. Kappa 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poster child for WP:NOT. Glad to see that Kappa is here to keep all us retarded excuse-mongerers honest. Eusebeus 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if you retards actually made some kind of effort to engage with the issues. Kappa 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be nice if you could argue our points rather than simply calling us retards for arguing our points. If your only defense against our arguments is to call us retards, I'd say that argument is pretty strong. --Joffeloff 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You don't regard "better organized than the category" as a defense against "and has no purpose that categories can not fill much better"? Would you like me to go into more detail? Kappa 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be called a retard by Kappa is an honour of sorts. It means we are doing something right. Eusebeus 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Come on guys, let's be civil! Corpx 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I remember when Kappa used to be civil back when I was constantly on AfD a couple of years ago. We always disagreed, but he always stuck to arguements based on his interpretation of policy and always refused to be drawn in by the baiting of others. I am saddend to see that a member of the community who used to have such integrity has changed in this manner. Indrian 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You'll notice that there's no actual incentive for people like Eusebeus to engage in discussion when they can always rely more unreasoned votes to show up and win by sheer force of numbers. Kappa 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD A7: Unremarkable people. ●DanMS • Talk 16:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Courtney[edit]

Seeing is believing? This article has no notability at all, and is very uncyclopedic. An article based on someone who ran on a field when a batsmen hit a home run. What has this website come to? The sunder king 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, almost empty page. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Surely a candidate for CSD A7, an unremarkable person. --Malcolmxl5 14:11, 29 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, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Elvis impersonators[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Second nomination, originally nominated in 2005, AFD closed with no consensus. WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional Elvis impersonators (not even a list of real ones)... This is (as another put it many years ago) "listcruft gone mad". The list itself has few links to actual articles. It's literally just a list of Elvis impersonators in books and movies and the like. Absolutely no encyclopedic value. /Blaxthos 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. -- Futurano 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we had a list of people who impersonated Elvis, either professionaly or non-professionaly we would have a long list. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hunka hunka burnin' delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Non-notable juncture. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holy God, this is arbitrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another one of those indiscriminate and useless list that can be integrated into the main article.--JForget 23:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of real Elvis impersonators would be bad enough. Mandsford 01:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hair popping[edit]

A7 RichardJ Christie 11:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only guitarists cited in this article are 1) a member of a fictional hard rock band and 2) a member of a 2000s (nonnotable) metal group called Tsunami Apocalypse. This is not only WP:NEO but it's not even a widespread phenomenon in the musical genre. Not quite a WP:HOAX, but probably a joke article designed to promote the second band in question. I'll list the band here at AfD separately. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a common term, and I doubt the hair makes all that much noise at all. Some Spinal Tap jokes have entered the popular culture enough to be worth their own articles, but until a major heavy metal band starts using the technique deliberately and major guitar magazines start discussing the technique, this one is not notable. Juryen 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dubious, and the only cite provided to back it up is fictional. -- The Anome 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sengkang's arguments apparently quite persuasive. Cool Hand Luke 09:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw House and Centre[edit]

The article neither asserts notability of its subject nor contains any hints on it. As far as I can see, this is not a tallest, largest or oldest building in Singapore. I believe they have hundreds of such centers there. Also unreferenced. Contested ProD. Brought here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- Futurano 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- Sengkang 12:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any place doesn't have to be an "-est" to be worthy of an article. Major shopping/office complex in central part of major internationally important city. --Oakshade 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still lacking independent sources attesting notability Corpx 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sufficient references (ie: 2) can be provided to demonstrate notability.Ga rr ie 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable building. Keb25 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Oakshade. It's a landmark building at the intersection of Orchard Road and Scotts Road, one of the busiest focal points in Singapore's main shopping belt. —Sengkang 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being at a busy intersection equals notability? Corpx 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picking "being at a busy intersection equals notability" equals lopsided arbitrary selectivity. Chensiyuan 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To further substantiate my point, Shaw House and Shaw Centre are one of the two major Shaw complexes built by Shaw Organization, our local film distribution company and movie theater chain founded in 1924. The former Shaw House and Shaw Centre were one of the earliest buildings to be established on Orchard Road, when a portion of it used to be a large cemetery but has now been developed into a major tourist belt. They are one of the busiest buildings on Orchard Road in terms of human traffic, whether it is a weekday or a weekend. To Singaporeans, it is a major landmark and serves as their common meeting point. —Sengkang 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a rant, my fellow SGpedians have put in much effort and time in creating Singapore-related articles, and I am amazed at the insistence of removing some of these articles in the name of "non-notability". I have made my point...Thanks! —Sengkang 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it can be a possibility. One Times Square would probably not reach its current state of notability if it was not at a busy intersection called Times Square.--Huaiwei 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one times square has plenty of coverage from independent sources Corpx 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

727 results for a world-famous NY countdown venue, compared to 31 for "Shaw House Singapore". Not too bad!--Huaiwei 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of those hits are directory entires which merely reflects the address of a particular business inside this building. Corpx 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those links are actually addresses?--Huaiwei 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not qualify as significant coverage Corpx 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, the high coverage for One Times Square still underscores my original point that its notability has plenty to do with its location.--Huaiwei 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This building is one of the most prominent landmarks of Orchard Road, and it is shocking to see it being nominated for deletion, along with some other cases. Spruce up the article if neccesary, but an outright deletion is going a tad too far.--Huaiwei 10:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a tremendous difference between "let's clean this up" and "i don't know anything about this so let's delete it". Chensiyuan 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic landmark. --Vsion 02:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, flagship of Shaw Group; [56]major cineplex hosting world premieres [57] [58]. Kappa 05:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its all these things mentioned, there has got to be some sources that are giving "significant coverage" to this building. Corpx 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So change your vote to "keep" Kappa 05:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also described as "impressive" in the British Government's Colony of Singapore Annual Report 1958. Kappa 05:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [59][reply]
That's a trivial mention Corpx 07:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what would a non-trivial mention be like? Kappa 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-trivial mention would be, mention in a report about Shaw House. Not a passing mention in the annual report of any organisation. If you can show that the annual report has a whole chapter about Shaw House and it's impact on the economy then that would be non-trivial - but Shaw House hasn't had that big an impact so the only mention of it in the governments annual report is trivial. With that in mind, it's an excellent citation for the fact it is verifying.Ga rr ie 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda strange that the British government describing this building as "impressive" in the context of the history of the colony in 1958 is regarded as insignificant. Anyway, as Corpx says, there must be more sources, it's just very hard to track them down via google. I wonder if a "spate of nostalgic articles" counts...[60] Kappa 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of work done on this, and it looks a valid article to me. Deb 11:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please explain why, in your opinion, the nominator should be admonished for this good-faith nomination? --B. Wolterding 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Without necessarily alluding to the present situation, good faith isn't always presupposed, if I may add. Chensiyuan 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable landmark in major city. --Beloved freak 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Dufour[edit]

I had deleted this article two weeks ago, because I did not perceive that this individual was notable, and in addition to that, the subject of the article is Acousmadef (talk · contribs), and he is the primary author (he is also the primary author at fr:Denis Dufour and it:Denis Dufour, but they have their own policies). This man is solely notable and has only released albums in his native country of France. The only reason my initial deletion was overruled because of abuse of OTRS in his sending a ticket to get his autobiography undeleted at the English Wikipedia, and to release his rights on any material he has created at the other projects. I personally don't see this man passing WP:MUSIC, and WP:AUTOBIO should be taken into account here, as it is very unlikely that this article can be written with a neutral point of view if its only author is the subject.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is uncited, there are no WP:RS reliable independent sources evidencing the necessary degree of notability. I am unsure whether or not "several instrumental ensembles" is notable (many people create unnotable ensembles, or create notable ensembles but are themselves non-notable), and the same might go for being "the principle instigator of the festival Futura and artistic director of Motus". These are the only two claims asserted in the article, and in each case notability of Dufour himself is as yet, completely unevidenced.

There is some tendency these days in the community that people who become marginally notable mostly due to involvement in some other notable matter (?such as musical ensembles) are better dealt with by a redirect to that "Bigger picture" article. So there are some claims that might show notability, marginal notability, or no notability at all, and I can't judge which. And of course per nom, there are the autobio concerns and context which is significant. But unless he is notable in his own right and meets WP:RS, WP:N and WP:AUTOBIO, and other policies on notability and inclusion, then there probably should be no article on him.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - numerous problems including being uncited. People who aren't in regular contact with such a subject would be startled by the way it is written. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No record of any publication on the normal channels (Yahoo Music or Gracenote are what I checked) - so he may be an independent. Sounds like he'd be a good musician, at any rate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisment[edit]

Neologism referring to former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, and the name of an Internet movie inspired by him. Fails criteria in WP:WINAD and WP:MOVIE. Delete and redirect to Mike Harris. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but no redirect. Who is going to look up Harrisment and want to find Mike harris? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Harlowraman 11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism with no traction to generate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article that I wrote very long ago (back in 2005) before I really understood what Wikipedia is about. Andrew_pmk | Talk 10:41, 31 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. Sr 13 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopoate[edit]

Unreferenced neologism referring to the last name of a rugby player. Violates WP:WINAD (I'd say hoax but the event did happen), and 'ouch!' besides. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is referenced now and the Melbourne Age did a story in 2004 about the term being used in a Hollywood film [61]. This was a big story in Australia at the time and has entered into the language in that part of the world. It could otherwise be merged into the rugby players article. Nick mallory 10:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide the references. Clearly a notable event by a notable person, but the articles you've provided don't have evidence of 'pulling a Hopoate' in common parlance, but rather point to the notability of the event itself. Perhaps Hopoate's biography here could be updated with the mention of the slang term, but I'm still not convinced it warrants a separate article. Could you provide some citations of its use? Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 11:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid it is a non-notable neologism. While the incident itself was widely notable, the noun Hopoate simply isn't notable. There's no mention of its usage as a noun in any of the references provided. Recurring dreams 11:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content somewhere per User:Recurring dreams. I've heard of the technique istelf regarding wrestling and martial arts, but the "Hopoate" term is clearly non-notable. -- Futurano 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Hopoate. The incident is referred to in there. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Hopoate as proposed by Capitalistroadster. The reference doesn't back up the neologism claim. John Hopoate is notable as is his on-field behaviour, but there is no need for an unsourced standalone article like this one (WP:HOAX springs to mind also - Hopoate certainly did "hopoate" people, but I doubt the term is in common use).Euryalus 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per those advocating that. It's a shame, since I know the term was used (and as a verb, regardless of what the article says) by several people I know. There's even a sculpture in Brisbane which is nicknamed "the Hopoate Memorial" by certain individuals. Not that that counts a fig in terms of what we'd need for this article, since there don't seem to be any sources backing my claims. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Tne term is certainly not in common use. A beat-up in a newspaper article does not make it so. —Moondyne 10:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To "do/pull a Hopoate" (I've never heard it used as a verb directly) is indeed a common expression even here in WA where rugby is a non-event - the poor guy will probably never be remembered by most my age for his actual *rugby* skills! - but it is a neologism and shoudl be redirected to the main article. Zivko85 07:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Capitalistroadster :: maelgwn - talk 10:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ReDir Per CapRoad. Twenty Years 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' - just tonight watching the Sports News came a piece about a rugby league player who 'grabbed a handful of his opponent's testicles' and my immediate thought turned to the phrase Hopoate - leading to this discussion. It may not be in extremely wide useage - but then again this particular pecadillo is quite unusual and certainly will be associated with John Hopoate evermore. I am sure that if any sports person assaults an opponent in this fashion it will certainly invoke memories of another 'Hopoate'. BTW - this is unusual enough to have caused me to create an account and take time to offer my view. Thanks. Narky66 13:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) narky66[reply]

That doesn't actually prove anything. The fact that you personally think about Hopoate when someone does something vaguely like what he did only shows that that's what you think. Now, if the newsreader had said "The player then did a Hopoate by grabbing a handful of his opponent's testicles", that would be something. The fact that Hopoate did what he did is covered in his article already. Additionally, please note that the best place to respond to an AfD is at the bottom of the discussion, with your signature after your comment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 03:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jhene Aiko[edit]

This article is about an R&B/Pop/Rap artist... I don't really know, as all of the "sources" don't say, and anything on Google doesn't really give much. She is unsigned, and if it weren't for the site with sony music [62], I'd say that she didn't meet notability guidelines. Either way, however, there aren't really any sources at all, and the article is a mess. --HAL2008talk 09:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Doesn't look like anything more than an advertisement article for a no-name rapper. There's zero notability here. Sidatio 03:02, 30 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. --Core desat 07:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kafani[edit]

Rapper from Oakland, who has released a single (the stated basis for notability) and no albums. Unreferenced and fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MUSIC is failed at this point - with no albums and minimal coverage, the one single (which isn't getting a lot of play either) doesn't really cut it. Happy to reconsider if someone brings sources forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as present notability appears lacking and no sources are provided.--Stormbay 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.L.T.[edit]

Beyond the external link listed, I could find no references/sources to add to this article to support subject's notability. Does not meet the requirements in WP:Notability. Ozgod 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an A7, totally non-notable. All GHits for the acronym A.L.T. only give me "alt rap" or the Usenet group "alt.rap" (which is why I hate how Google insists on finding alternate spellings). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dissolve and the fox. A.L.T. has had two albums on notable labels, plus a charting single, so he passes WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I can't find a huge amount of news or other coverage of him, but that's not really surprising, being from 1992 and likely before much in the way of online caching was really done. Searching for "Al Trivette" or "Another Latin Timebomb" do turn up a couple thousand hits. He does have two albums on apparently notable labels, Atlantic Records and Inner City Records; both have been reviewed in major publications, like Entertainment Weekly (though short) and Rolling Stone. Two albums on established labels meets at least one condition of WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing per Dissolve's research - a Billboard hit single helps meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Tony Fox. It needs real cites. Bearian 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 20:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALT is one of the most important Mexican American rappers. He also wrote lyrics for many rappers such as Kid Frost and Gerardo. Wathiik 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you turn up any online references to indicate that, by any chance? It would help with improving the article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The two albums appear to meet criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC. 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete no independent sources to prove notability. The album Stone Cold World should have likely been listed as part of this AFD. Pats Sox Princess 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete nothing really to source the group. If I can find anything, I'll change my vote. --HAL2008talk 09:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had a charted hit "Tequila" (#48 on The Billboard Hot 100 in 1992) [63] so passes WP:MUSIC #2. dissolve ^talk 10:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Wathiik, also qualifies under the Criteria for composers and lyricists #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above" with Litefoot [64] and Kid Frost [65][66][67][68] dissolve ^talk 16:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tequila was a big hit in Australia in the summer of 1992 and 93. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have mentioned there are no independent sources and so far none have turned up. So I vote Delete. Xtreme racer 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Billboard, and the All Music Guide surely meet WP:RS for a music article. dissolve ^talk 00:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hueston[edit]

Assistant professor at West Texas A&M, with a background in security. Unreferenced, fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 09:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not enough to pass WP:PROF Corpx 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article mostly describes his history in law enforcement, rather than his academic life. That seems like something that could give him a good boost in his academic career, but not really anything to establish notability here, and as his academic career itself is just beginning he doesn't pass WP:PROF either. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 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 page was moved then speedy deleted. ●DanMS • Talk 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acenes[edit]

Non-notable as a yearbook of a high school. This would be best included as a sidenote in an article about the high school. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. This article has no bearing whatsoever, and might even be a WP:HOAX. --HAL2008talk 09:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to Acene. The given sources don't provide verification, and even if they did, it wouldn't be notable. Gordonofcartoon 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was moved to Ashish Silwal by User:Asilwal, and he removed the AfD template. Moreover, it looks like he is now using it as a personal sub-page. --Uthbrian (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7. - KrakatoaKatie 05:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faton[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. Note that the IMDb link is false. -- RHaworth 08:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete joke/hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Uthbrian (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete definitely a WP:HOAX. --HAL2008talk 09:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the show does exist, per a search on Yahoo ... but come on now, an article about an actor in a show that won't go to air until 2010????? That's the definition of crystalballery. Blueboy 96 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This is the latest attempt by Fatonkrasniqi (talk · contribs) to get his bio on Wikipedia. It's already been salted under the title Faton krasniqi ... probably need more salt as well. I've also reported the author to WP:AIV--apparently he created it after getting a final warning for creating inappropriate pages. Blueboy 96 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 15:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above, total hoax. A7 or G1 speedy may also be a possibility. Don't forget the images -- Image:Faton krasniqi wiki.JPG and Image:Comedianfatonkrasniqi.JPG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the AIV page, I noticed this edit. What does "Stopped/empty" mean? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the admin who removed the listing wasn't familiar with this guy's history. I've alerted the admin who threw him the level-4 warning, though. I'm seriously thinking about slapping an IAR speedy tag on this one--multiple attempts to recreate the same article under different titles? No thank you ... Blueboy 96 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Stopped/empty” means that the list of vandals reported to the AIV page is empty. Admins monitor this page and delete a reported vandal from the list as soon as the vandal has been dealt with. Apparently at that particular point the working admin had come to the end of the list and removed all of the reports currently on the list. Admins working this page frequently use an edit summary something like “Two more to go...” or something similar. ●DanMS • Talk 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it's not bogus, it's WP:CRYSTALly. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, by overwhelming consensus. El_C 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infidel[edit]

Article is tending towards two problematic extremes, one towards a dictionary entry belonging on wikitionary, the other towards a narrative that begins to look like a fork to other pages. Tigeroo 08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the best article on this difficult topic, but needs improvement, not removal. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate topic which is exhaustively referenced. Nick mallory 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What? Arrow740 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't happen to see any of the problems which you claim apply to this article. The only "dictionary"-esque element is the introduction, which is perfectly normal. I'm not seeing the second possibility at all. Care to elaborate?--C.Logan 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question had been asked if this grouping was tending towards WP:OR or had become a strange fork because it was taking "Infidel" beyond it's usage in English to translations elsewhere (even if sourced as directly related to the word Infidel) and thus wandering off from the article topic.--Tigeroo 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:(edit conflict) the article does need some cleanup, but it's an important topic that should have an article. This might even be a WP:SNOW keep. --HAL2008talk 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: exhaustively referenced Harlowraman 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not exhaustively referenced (see Judaism section), but shouldn't be deleted Recurring dreams 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's got 16 references. Nick mallory 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced, encyclopedic. Reinis^talk 12:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above. I disagree with the nom -- this is more than just a dicdef. Article simply needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Infidel (ecclesiastical term) with a see also section that links to other similar words/ concepts in other religions and leave a wikitionary link in the disambiguation page to the dicdef--Tigeroo 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is definitely a proper topic — consider how well-sourced this is! Nyttend 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not really about sources but is the narrative one that fits within the the definition of WP:NOR or about how it may be defined. See the edit history.--Tigeroo 09:33, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agonistmusic[edit]

Currently a non-notable band. Article appears to have been written by one of the band members. --Uthbrian (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references whatsoever. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 07:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Swedish rappers who supposedly might get signed someday. No thanks. --Bongwarrior 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 15:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post count[edit]

neologism lacking "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" - Also, content is full or WP:OR Corpx 07:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't seem to be very encyclopedic. Also, seems to be non-notable — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 07:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - While the subject and associated phenomenon are worth an article (forums aren't something obscure by now), it needs sources. If someone adds at least some reference and edits the article accordingly, keep, otherwise delete. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:38, 31 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 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror film killers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group. Consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously, this is an example of listcruft. List can also be hard to maintain. — *H ¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 07:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Harlowraman 15:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize, I suppose, though I can't really think of an appropriate title. Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional serial killers (2nd nomination). CaveatLector^Talk 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of blue and red links. With no concept of how Freddy might be different than Pinhead or Chuckie, it truly is "indiscriminate information" Mandsford 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - can be improved on. Majorly (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group. Consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Nominator has no opinion on this nomination. ●DanMS • Talk 05:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep but somehow needs to portray "in fiction", else it would be a short list of real ones. Chris 05:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know of some people with superpowers in real life? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary, Oprah, others who use their powers malevolently... ;) Chris 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Not exactly the same thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my reasoning on the List of horror film killers Afd. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs serious work. A mere list of links is not very helpful; indications in-article of the source, date of appearance, and so on -- and a better organization -- would help make this list more useful. RandomCritic 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize This is going to become a large list that just connects these articles together without and other descriptions, so it should just become a category. The Placebo Effect 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include more of an introduction to set context. Such a list might be useful to those studying feminism and related issues, since there are overwhlemingly more male superheroes and supervillains than female. I agree that the title should perhaps be adjusted a bit to be more precise. 23skidoo 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Random that it could be improved, but since it's a mere list of links with no sign that it will ever be more than that, it's super-villainous. Mandsford 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's OK now, and it can be improved. - Peregrine Fisher 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Mandsford Harlowraman 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If you do want to categorize, and you need the list of people, please notify me. —Kurykh 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional serial killers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group. Consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. Nominator has no opinion on this nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). ●DanMS • Talk 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize this one. I had assumed that 'horror film killers' actually meant serial killers, but I suppose I was wrong. There's actually room here to build a good category. CaveatLector^Talk 05:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, it's mostly a list of characters without explanation of what makes them, uh, special. Credit to author for linking the person to the film, but I'd say the same for a similar list of real serial killers. Mandsford 01:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The characters on the list aren't connected so it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Category could work, but we don't need the article to build the category if we want one. Jay32183 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate subject for a list and informative. -- Thefreemarket 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional psychiatrists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST; information, navigation, and devolopment. - Peregrine Fisher 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it’s worth, Wikipedia does have:

...and a whole lot more fluff. ●DanMS • Talk 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some of these are important and some are not, .
Keep This one is important. There are about 40 or 50 entries here, all from major works where the character or the work are both have WP articles -- there's no real room for confusion about whether someone belongs on the list, given the article, almost all of them play a major role in the work, and the list is well prepared and maintainable. Collections ofthis sort are encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a nickel every time someone said this.... look at it this way: is there anything on the list that could not be dealt with by a category? No. It's simply parroting information which can be found on the Wiki. There have been many similar lists to this that have been deleted, on far more notable (and real world) subjects. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Similar articles exist" is not a good argument against deletion, then "similar articles were deleted" can't be a good argument for deletion.RandomCritic 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content of article goes well beyond mere categorization, making it a useful navigational tool. RandomCritic 14:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Random Critic and DGG. Trust me, these persons have led many a college student to go into psychology. I would tend to agree with DanMS about the list of fictional airborne castles, since I never knew anybody who aspired to go into that line of construction. Mandsford 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST; information, navigation, and devolopment. - Peregrine Fisher 20:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful list so long as speculation is kept out of it, many such characters wouldn't have an individual page and so replacing with categories would lose out on information. Wandering Ghost 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not a bad list. Squidfryerchef 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the autistic spectrum[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list has 55 references. By sticking to people who have been diagnosed as shown by referenced sources, the list satisfies WP:A. The normal editing process can address any WP:BLP issues with respect to non-notable private individuals whom someone might add to the list, while allowing the appropriate listing of notable autistic persons such as Temple Grandin. (It seems bizarre that anyone would group nominate these along with lists of "horror film killers")Edison 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'd generally vote to convert unsourced lists to categories, this list is fully sourced and additions without citation are speedily removed, sufficient reason to keep it in this form. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List complies with sourcing requirements. David McNamara 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly defined list on a defining quality. Doczilla 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I call Speedy Keep but recommend a re-formatting to follow the example of FA List of HIV-positive people. Canuckle 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asperger's Syndrome is a wonderful gift, and I guess this deletion nomination may have been established as a result of conspiracy by fascist lesbian feminists who misandristly discriminate against Asperger's Syndrome on the basis that it has been theorised as being the result of an "extreme male brain". Yes we definitely need to keep the article, and also write in the article some famous people speculated to have Asperger's, like Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates, who were mentioned in one of the article's hidden HTML-comments as having not been formally diagnosed.

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with post-traumatic stress disorder[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable concept for a list. Alternatively merge into post-traumatic stress disorder. Needs sources, but that alone doesn't mean it should be deleted. Someguy1221 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment it would have to renamed as 'list of noteable people with...' because a list of ordinary people with PTSD would never be complete and might be very long.Merkinsmum 11:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Every list on Wikipedia is implicitly a "list of notable..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who diagnosed these people with this condition? The assertion is not cited in the individual articles either. Corpx 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Doczilla 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my reasoning on killer AfD. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:49, 30 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 for deletion.. Navou ^banter 15:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have acted as their own attorney[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting as one's own attorney in a notable case is itself noteworthy. Alternatively, merge into pro se. Someguy1221 09:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The information here is well worth keeping, but perhaps should be directed to articles on the case, not the person. If the case wasn't prominent enough to merit its own article, does it really deserve to be listed? RandomCritic 01:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vaguely named category. (I prepared my own will. According to the title, I should be included.) Doczilla 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you don't like the title, you could go and rename it. The opening to the list makes the criteria quite clear. 151.152.101.44 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So long as well referenced, its an important legal concept, and this is an excellent navigational aid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keeps above, on the understanding it is for people who did so in trials only. Johnbod 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pro se, do not keep here. It apparently gives users the perception that the list itself is a notable legal concept when in fact this list should be unified with the concept, which is discussed elsewhere. As an added bonus, "pro se" specifically refers to these types of parties, as opposed to people who simply draft their own will. Cool Hand Luke 09:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep - non admin closure by Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with epilepsy[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was previously nominated in a group, but consensus was to break the group apart and list individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers (2nd nomination). Abstain. ●DanMS • Talk 06:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the procedural nomination. This article was listed in the original nominator’s group deletion (see above), but the nominator did not place an AFD tag on the article, nor did he create the discussion page (this page). I placed the AFD banner on the article and created this page because this article was on the nominator’s list. ●DanMS • Talk 16:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this has everything sourced via reliable 3rd parties and is a featured article too! Are you sure you've nominated the correct article? Lugnuts 08:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you cite WP:SNOW after just 1 "vote" ? Corpx 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, because it's not got a snowball's chance of being AFD'd... Lugnuts 09:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Featured list, well sourced, critera well defined, notable concept, and well written to boot! Let's keep the snowball rollin'! Someguy1221 09:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course (main editor). I know such lists are controversial on WP and may produce a IDONTLIKEIT reaction. So I thought someone might try to AfD it at some point (like hepatitis C). But to be lumped in with eight other unrelated lists like "List of horror film killers"! Why not just put "List of *" into one big AfD and suggest a category instead? OK... to the point...

The original AfD said:

how do you decide what goes in List of people with epilepsy? By its very name, it could contain almost everyone, and would become too long and manageable. On the other hand, it could be turned into a category. David Fuchs

This is a list of notable individuals only, not all 50 million affected people in the world. The word "notable" can't be used in the title, per List naming conventions policy. I've now added the word to the lead to make it obvious. This list is almost a textbook example of where a category is inferior. See Categories and Categorization of people for reasons. Please read the whole list, not just the first section.

Related lists include ones on brain tumor patients, HIV-positive people and polio survivors. All are featured lists, the last was featured only last week. There's enough support for such lists, when done sensitively. Colin°^Talk 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but how is this not a list of loosely associated people? (WP:NOT)) The only common trait the people on this list have is that they all had a disease. What is this list trying to prove? That notable people can also catch the disease, just like the common folk? The list is extremely well referenced and I commend the people who worked on it, but grouping people based on a disease they contracted is a loosely associated list to me. I think lists of loose inclusion criteria like this should be replaced with a category Corpx 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the key idea distinguishing this from a list of "loosely associated" topics is that having epilepsy can be (and in some cases certainly is) noteworthy. Someguy1221 10:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have three counter-arguments to the "loosely associated" challenge. Firstly, epilepsy is not just "a disease" like chicken pox. It is a chronic condition, classed as a disability, and prior to the 20th century was effectively untreatable and subject to great stigma. For many of these people, epilepsy has totally shaped their lives (career, marriage, faith). Secondly, the study of possible epilepsy in historical figures has fascinated medical historians, doctors and scientists for centuries. Books and numerous scientific papers have been written on the subject. The link with religiosity is a frequent subject of books, articles, TV programs, etc. Finally, the list is a source of useful information for journalists, activists, parents, and charities. All the major epilepsy charities maintain their own such lists. Name-dropping at the beginning of a talk is a common technique to engage one's audience. Therefore, I believe this is an encyclopaedic topic worthy of study and note.
A category would be inferior as it could only include those with a definite diagnosis (see Categorization of people) and may run into WP:BLP problems. It would, of course, lack the additional info with each list entry. It would be devoid of all of the latter two thirds, which concentrates on historical, religious and misdiagnosis. This latter section is particularly important IMO. I mean, how do you discuss entries such as St. Paul or Muhammad in a category? Colin°^Talk 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Corpx, what you're missing is that this list is not, and was never meant as, a standalone article; it was split off from Epilepsy because it became too long and because enough issues cropped up with regard to the content to warrant its own talk page. It is still linked from Epilepsy as a subsection. See below for a more detailed explanation of how this came about. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not at all comfortable with "List of people with <disease>" on wikipedia. This is would just open up the door for lists of people with any kind of life changing experience. I dont see how a category can run into WP:BLP issues. After all, we have Category:Living People instead of List of Living People. This link says that 1 in 56 Texans (my state) have epilepsy. Based on those numbers, I would say its not a very uncommon disease and makes the list even more "loose" as such a large number of people share the trait. Corpx 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Corpx, are you arguing that the article's content should be folded back into Epilepsy? Or that the current article should be renamed, maybe to People with epilepsy? Or that the article's content should be deleted from wikipedia entirely? Or a fourth alternative? -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it would make no sense for many diseases and if this list was in danger of becoming unmanageably long then it would be unsuitable as a list. There are only 78 names in the "certain diagnosis" section. It isn't as common as that link suggests (indeed the linked-to article is entitled "Epilepsy Rate Among Texas Adults Unexpectedly High"). The usual range is 5-10 cases per 1000 persons (The incidence and prevalence of epilepsy). However, epilepsy is disproportionately overrepresented among the very young, the very old and those with intellectual and behavioural disabilities. The prevalence among those likely to achieve notability on Wikipedia is much, much lower. Coupled with stigma and the fact that many people these days have their seizures controlled effectively with medication (and so can keep it hidden), it will be seriously under-reported. This is a more comprehensive list than you will find anywhere else (and there are many such lists in webland), and yet only has 78 definite names.
The BLP issue arises because epilepsy still carries a stigma (for example many people think it is a mental illness) and can affect someone's employment prospects (though legislation is supposed to prevent this). Claiming that so-and-so has epilepsy on a #1 Google site requires great care. The guidelines on categories explicitly warn of these dangers when using them for sensitive subjects. They are fine for Category:British doctors, and other uncontested and easy to justify sets. I taken the BLP concerns so seriously, I performed an audit of the sources. Colin°^Talk 09:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Corpx.millions of others with the same disease there biography can mention it but no separate article . Harlowraman 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Realise that this needed to be nominated after group nom was split up, but there is no way this should be deleted. The bounds for inclusion are clear, the article is well cited, etc. Recurring dreams 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As much as I generally dislike this kind of list, I'll admit this one is well written and sourced. However, it says itself that modern scientists doubt there is any link between epilepsy and genius, although it was a popular theory for centuries. I'd be more happy with a title such as Link between epilepsy and genius. That kind of article could confront the pros and the cons of the theory, with a shorter list of famous epileptics as an illustration. In any case, the contents of the current article are acceptable. --Targeman 11:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. List is well sourced, and has fairly well defined criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been identified as a featured list, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy. I'm surprised that it would be a featured list to one group of people but deletion-worthy to another group of people. I think we need a little more individual review for each of these lists that pops up, rather than an overall view of, "We don't need indiscriminate lists on Wikipedia," or, "Wikipedia should be a source of all information." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A category cannot substitute the information that is given in this list. T Rex | talk 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's totally valid. Also: really poor form to nominate a featured list for deletion as that's a giant slap in the face to the FL community. --JayHenry 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep-this is featured for crying out loud. To be honest, I'm pretty much sure I'd oppose the deletion of any featured content. By being featured, its been proven that community consensus is that this page represents the best Wikipedia has to offer. Under those circumstances, deletion would require a really convincing reasoning, and I'm not seeing that here.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a deletionmania problem: things get nominated that never should have come up to AfD, for no other reason than that a word (like "list" or "popular") in the title bugs someone. Just being a list is not a sufficient criterion for deletion, but apparently it is being treated that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RandomCritic (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2007.

To all Keep and especially RandomCritic above: I don't care if its FA or its got a billion sources, that doesn't mean it has any greater right to not be deleted. I'm not arguing wehter its sourced: I'm saying it seems to be flying in the face of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Come on then, its a list of people with epilepsy. Now, couldn't that just be made into a category, Category:Persons with Epilepsy, or whatnot? Why do we need a list which if we look at it literally could include millions of people. Not only that, it could fall under listcrufty parameters. If this were an article about Epileptic people with something like critical commentary not associated with labeling people as epileptic or no, then I wouldn't be here. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further note: there have been many, many AfD on similar list-type articles: see Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title or Articles for deletion/List of black rock musicians. Not as well cited, but it doesn't change their notability. David Fuchs^(talk) 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps commenter should take the response as an indication that s/he may not properly understand the meaning of the word "indiscriminate". RandomCritic 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, please read my responses above. A category already exists; it is (and is required to be) inferior. For the living persons it has serious potential WP:BLP concerns. For the historical people, it is totally unsuitable as there will be doubt about the categorisation that must be discussed. More than half of this list discusses retrospective (i.e. doubtful) and incorrect (but v. widely reported) cases. If you read up on categories, you'll see the guidelines say "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." They also say "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization."

Sure, similar arguments appear time and again on AfD. Other than that, this list has no similarity to Portuguese books, horror film killers, etc. Please keep the discussion focussed on this AfD and not other stuff.

Ultimately, rather than WikiLawyering, could you ask yourself if Wikipedia is better of with List of people with epilepsy replaced by Category:People with epilepsy. The answer is so obviously no; its Featured List status should tell you that. Colin°^Talk 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Are you kidding me? There is no way a category could ever come close to substituting the encyclopedic, sourced and verifiable information here, nor is a category approach appropriate for living persons. Categories can't have caveats.--DO11.10 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I want to explain exactly why I created this article, and how it came to be the way it is, for the purpose of informing this debate. The article came about as a split from epilepsy; it was originally a subsection of that article. There were two problems with this subsection: it was too long, and it was difficult to maintain. In particular, there are a number of people to whom the diagnosis of epilepsy has been attributed on very thin historical evidence; including some of these people (Mohammed, in particular) on the list both violated WP:V and, because of stigma, could be construed as offensive to certain people or groups.

I first argued that the list should be removed from the article entirely. However, when this was tried it rapidly became clear that many users of the epilepsy article consider this topic to be a pertinent part of a discussion of epilepsy and that if the list were not present, it would rapidly be re-created by any number of well-intentioned editors. I therefore split the list off as List of famous people with epilepsy. When it was pointed out that Wikipedia inclusion guidelines made "famous" redundant - only notable people would be included - the list was moved to its current name.

The next step was a vigorous debate about criteria for inclusion on the list; most of this debate can be seen on the article's talk page. Specifically, how certain does the diagnosis have to be to qualify for inclusion on the list? The vigor and focus of this debate had not been possible on Talk:Epilepsy, where it was scattered among other topics. The current article is heavily and appropriately sourced and referenced; for anyone researching the topic, it is a gold mine of useful information.

To offer my personal perspective as a practicing epileptologist: this article represents the very best of Wikipedia. When I want people to see just how good a job Wikipedia can do, I show them this article; and then I tell them that I was initially opposed to its creation because I thought it would be a useless article. Many of my colleagues and patients have been impressed, and maybe a few even aided in their professional and personal lives, by this article. I think for these reasons deleting it would be an error. If the problem is that "Lists" are considered unencyclopedic, I propose renaming the article to "People with epilepsy" as a subsection of Epilepsy; it is much more than an indiscriminate list. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:49, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch_Calloway[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Enoch Calloway

not notableFreedomByDesign 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Moreover, a google search shows up reliable hits for this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a joke! This person wrote somebody about an article that was being written? There is no notability here at all-should be immediately deleted. Alex Jackl 13:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only non-notable, but the content of the article is trivial. DaveApter 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete—Kurykh 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry_Margolis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Harry Margolis

not notableFreedomByDesign 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is mentiond in a few news articles. -Icewedge 06:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the subject was in a few articles and there is documentation, this person is no different from thousands of other people like him. He is not encyclopedic. Alex Jackl 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non notable. DaveApter 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person, non encyclopedic article.--Saladdays 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I would not be surprised to see the article back at AfD, though, if the sourcing problem is not addressed within a reasonable period of time.

Doctor Who story chronology[edit]

Prodded with the reason: "This has the potential to be very large (there are well over a hundred books out already) and does not provide anything that can't be found elsewhere in categories and other articles.". Prod was removed, ~~and a less than civil comment added by the author to my talk page for which he was warned, though he removed the warning.~~ Also, I suspect an attempt to fit the books into the tv series chronology may count as WP:OR. Jamoche 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD addresses the content of the article, not editor behavior, such as alleged incivility or removing a warning on his talk page. Those do not belong on this page and serve only to obscure the real question of whether or not the article should be deleted according to WP policies and consensus. (Besides, the editor's comment to you was only slightly uncivil, mostly just annoyed about the {{PROD}} and wanted you to remove it; there're much worse civility issues than that happening many times every day on Wikipedia.) --Parzival418 _Hello 05:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll strike that out. It's not why I AfD'd - I think the prod was valid. --Jamoche 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, well done; I appreciate your good faith decision on that. I'm not ready with a comment on the AfD itself yet, I need to consider it for a bit. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)--Parzival418 _Hello 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It depends on whether or not these episodes are notable. Looks to me like the real world coverage comes from fan sites. Correct me if I'm wrong Corpx 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are real world sources for the TV episodes, books and audios (see Chronology of the Doctor Who universe#References and notes and my comment below). The problem is that this page is trying to combine different sources into a single chronology, ~~which can't be done without violating WP:OR.~~ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clarify page title to disambiguate. I've learned a lot about this from the discussion below, so I'm changing my comment to keep. My prior comments follow here, and are struck out. Here are my reasons for the change to "keep":

This article does not duplicate the other Dr. Who articles, it approaches the subject from a different direction, providing additional value.
WP:OR is not sufficient grounds for deletion, when if the article can be improved, WP:OR removed and WP:NPOV and WP:V satisfied. According to further discussion below, it looks like that could be possible with this article. Before deleting on grounds of WP:OR, the article should be tagged for references and editors should have the chance to bring it up to standards.
The length of the article is not a reason to delete, per WP:NOTPAPER - we have many long articles not being AfD's due to length.
The title of the page should be changed to disambiguate from Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. This article is about the stages of Dr Who's life, not the chronology of the story/universe, so it should be titled appropriately. DAB tags should be added to both articles.
The long and involved discussion on this page shows that this topic is of interest to many editors and readers. If after additional work it turns out that WP:OR cannot be fully removed from the article, it can be AfD'd later. But so much information has come up from this discussion, that editors have a solid basis to dig in and provide WP:Reliable sources for the article. Items that can't be sourced can be moved to the talk page while sourcing is in process. Deletion now, after so much new info about sources has come up, would be premature. --Parsifal _Hello 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~'Neutral. Keep or Merge into Chronology of the Doctor Who universe.~~ Now that I've had a chance to review these articles, I see that this article does not exactly duplicate other similar articles. The difference is that in this one, books and radio/audio episodes are listed in addition to TV and film. That is valid information that does not appear elsewhere, so either we should keep this article, or we could merge it into the film/TV chronology article. The two pages have in common the idea of listing the stories in chronological sequence as they occur in the story, rather than as they were broadcast or printed (since Dr Who involves time travel, that is an important distinction). Unless there is a WP policy reason for deletion, the article should stay. That said, it may be preferable to merge it into Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, although there might be reasons to keep them separate. Regarding the nominator's comment that This has the potential to be very large - that is not a reason to delete, per WP:NOTPAPER - we have plenty of very long articles. I don't know enough about the stories to make that determination. If they are not merged, and this one is kept, then they should be clearly disambiguated. --Parsifal _Hello 07:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have re-edited my comment to change to Neutral because after reading the further discussions here, I realize I don't have enough knowledge of this surprisingly complicated topic to make an informed choice. Now I want to watch the DVDs though,... how will I find any time to edit Wikipedia? Maybe I could watch them and then go back to the past to re-edit my comment in this debate after I am more familiar with the topic. That probably won't work though, so I'll keep my comment at neutral. --Parsifal _Hello 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral — see below. Reluctant delete or redirect to Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. The notability of the episodes isn't the issue — there are plenty of reliable sources about Doctor Who episodes, novels, and audios (e.g. the I, Who series of guides, AHistory, etc.) The problem is that it's not really possible to say definitively what order the stories take place in. It's fine when you're dealing with the Missing Adventures, which say on their covers "This story takes place between such-and-such and so-and-so". But if you're going to try to place the audios and novels in together with the TV stories, you'll have to use some criterion to determine, for example, whether Time of Your Life comes before or after The Holy Terror. Both are set in the same period in the Doctor's life (after the trial, before he meets Mel "for the first time"), but to determine which comes first is original research. This is just one example of the sorts of determinations you'd have to make in constructing this list. Unfortunately, there's just no way to make those determinations without violating Wikipedia's rules on original research. Dominique Boies (a fan) has a list of the sort you're looking for here, but there's no place for that in Wikipedia's article space.

As an aside, you're always free to copy the content of this list into your own user space (at something like User:Victory93/Chronology), and use it to navigate Wikipedia's Doctor Who articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Addendum: This list already engages in original research by stating that The Infinity Doctors takes place before "An Unearthly Child" — Lance Parkin deliberately made the placement of TID in the Doctor's life story unclear (it could be a future Doctor who's returned to Gallifrey — yes, I know it's been destroyed, but it hadn't been when Parkin wrote the book). Similarly, how do we know that The Murder Game takes place after Invasion of the Cat-People? The order you suggest is the one on my bookshelves, but that's hardly a reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — I've changed my mind, per the argument by DHowell below. The structure he suggests might make it possible to construct this list without violating WP:NOR; it would be difficult and time-consuming, but not impossible. I still have concerns that it would be quite difficult to avoid original research in this article, but now I see how it could be done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list may not be perfect but no article on wikipedia is. Nick mallory 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its full of origional research and is not needed, don't merge into the other well writen page either, it would just make it worse. The books and so on are not considered cannon with the rest of the Whoniverse so merging wouldn't fit.--Wiggstar69 11:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is a different type of chronology then Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, its the order the stories were made rather the order of the time the stories were set in.--Wiggstar69 13:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - I may have misunderstood that from looking at the article. If it's the order the stories were written rather than the time they were set in, that would make it easier to keep the list it would not be original research, ie publication dates can be verified. Do you have the books or any way you can confirm this? The publishing info could be added to the article as references. So far we have not heard from the writer of the article, hopefully he'll show up soon and clarify his view on this too. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right — it's not the order the stories were written, it's the order they took place in in a fictionally constructed life of the Doctor. Most Doctor Who novels and audio plays are set "between" episodes of the television series. Some state explicitly on their covers or in CD inserts where (in the Doctor's life) they are set. To take an example from the list at Doctor Who story chronology, the novel The Sorcerer's Apprentice (published in 1995) is set between the television stories Marco Polo and The Keys of Marinus (aired in 1964). The problem is that a) some works don't say exactly where they're set, requiring original research to determine exactly where they fit, and b) while the novels and audios generally indicate where their stories are set with regard to the television series, they almost never indicate where they might be set with regard to each other. So (looking at the bottom of the list as it stands now), the novel World Game and the framing device of the audio Fear of the Daleks are both set after the events of the television story The War Games, but placing one before the other is completely arbitrary.

The audio dramas already have a Big Finish Doctor Who chronology, because (with a very few exceptions) every audio play indicates where it's "set" with regard to the television series. A similar list could be made for the Virgin Missing Adventures, which also indicate their "placement" in the series' continuity; and the placement of the Virgin New Adventures and Eighth Doctor Adventures is obvious and uncontroversial (with, again, a few exceptions such as the aforementioned Infinity Doctors). However, the Past Doctor Adventures did not state their placement explicitly, and while the placement of some is clear from the text (I mean really clear, as in the characters saying "We just left such-and-such a planet") others could take place anywhere in a season, so placing them definitively between two television stories is original research.

As for "canon" — Doctor Who has no officially established canon (as noted in canon (fiction)), so no one can really say what is and isn't "canonical". That's not a good reason to delete this page; however, the fact that it can't be constructed without resorting to original research is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page to show all of the Doctors life in order from when he was young to today. It shows not just the television stories but the expanded universe. I want people to know that in the Doctor Who universe theres not just Daleks and Cybermen but there is also others like Krill and the scourge. Also that the Doctor did not just travel with Rose and Sarah and others but also with others like Evelyn and Frobisher. I just wanted show what happened to the Doctor in his entire life from start to finish. This page has no relation to the page: Chronology of the Doctor Who universe as that page tells the years that the Doctor has visited from BC to AD. Victory93 30/7/2007

I understand that, Victory93, but do you understand why it's impossible to create such a page without violating Wikipedia's ban on original research? What basis does one use to say, for example, whether the Sixth Doctor traveled with Frobisher or Grant Markham or Evelyn first? What about the Eighth Doctor — do the Big Finish Eighth Doctor audios take place before the Eighth Doctor Adventures, after them, or in a parallel universe? Some fans slot them in the gap between The Eight Doctors and Vampire Science (while Sam is at that Greenpeace rally), while others put them in the period when the Eighth Doctor and Sam are separated (before Seeing I). Some fans choose to ignore the Big Finish stories altogether, while others ignore the novels. Putting them all together, while an enjoyable fan exercise (already taken to great lengths here, among other sites), can't be done without recourse to original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete) per Josiah Rowe, would be mostly highly contentious OR Stephenb (Talk) 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brave attempt to start a chronological list including both TV series and books, but poorly executed, and the list could get huge. However, I think it will never be completed. --Edokter (Talk) 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Putting aside the whole in-universe thing, I hope, we can evaluate this as an attempt to do something like List of Doctor Who stories by publication or air date. I'm not sure that serves any encyclopedic purpose. We already have List of Doctor Who serials, List of Doctor Who novelisations, List of Doctor Who audio releases, everything under {{Doctor Who books}}, and so forth. Those are encyclopedic. A combined list, though, doesn't exactly tell us anything. Fundamentally unencyclopedic; fancruft, in a word. --Dhartung | Talk 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with your "delete" comment, since my position on this is "neutral". But I don't see how this particular list could be considered "fancruft" or "unencyclopedic" (a not well-defined term in general), when all of the lists you named could be considered forms of fancruft as well. There are many such articles in Wikipedia, for all sorts of series of TV and books, and lots of it is there only by and for fans. So it's fancruft... so what? The main point is that if it's not WP:Verifiable or if it's WP:Original research as noted by some above, those would be valid reasons for deletions. But "unencylopedic" is too general a term that does not have a policy definition so should not be a reason for deletion of an article. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. It's not a bad idea, but for all the reasons put forth by Josiah Rowe, it's just impossible to do without original research. --Brian Olsen 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we finish this off? Thats 9 people saying 'Delete' to one person asking for it to be kept. Wiggstar69 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Some !votes have changed since the above comment, based on additional information added below. --Parsifal _Hello 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: If this page is deleted, if policy permits, please userfy it to preserve the work of the creator of the page, Victory93. I don't know if he realized that his work could be lost by deletion when he made the page. He might be able to use the formatting and content in some other context if he can resolve the WP:OR issues with it. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he'd be able to resolve the issues, but I've always found its polite to leave the page remaining under a user page.--Wiggstar69 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I have done nothing wrong. This page has taken me a while to make and I'll be just sad if it's gotten rid of. I use up all of my spare time to make this and I have to ask permission to use the internet. Plus if there is anything wrong with it you can always edit it rather than just delete. I mean you allow other Doctor Who related pages and you worry about this one I mean I found this other page with just a few writing and no one worries about that. Is there at least anything I can do to make sure this page dosen't get deleted. I would appreciate that. Plus I was already thinking of improveing the page and I would love to try it out. Victory93 31/7/2007

Victory93, Perhaps it would be accepted at this Dr Who wiki, where there doesn't seem to be a Chronology article. Totnesmartin 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, is it official to wikipedia. Victory93 31/7/2007 (continued on Victory93's talk page)

Note to closing administrator: This page I created is about the Doctors life from start to today. I have looked at other pages of Doctor Who and none of them fit the exact information as of this page. This page may be long but truth is that other pages that may not refer to Doctor Who are alos very long. Some people may say that this page will never be completed but they are wrong. I will use up all my spare time in completeing this page and I will show those that arn't arguing on this page about the Doctor Who saga but for those that just like to look up about Doctor Who for fun and information what it's all about. You can trust me on this. Victory93 31/7/2007
Weak Keep My first inclination was to vote Delete because it didn't appear to be a true chronology; I envisioned that as the different times that the doctor visited, maybe that's what it is; maybe it's a list of the order in which episodes were telecast. Either way, no dates, which are the chron in the chronology. However, Dr. Who has a loyal following and the author is working on this. Victory93, save this to your harddrive, just in case. Mandsford 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Doctor Who story chronology for a list of times the Doctor has visited. This was meant to be "the story of the Doctor's life", including not only the TV stories but the novels and audio plays which have been set "between" different TV stories. ~~The problem is that you can't do that without resorting to original research.~~ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Chronology of the Doctor Who universe, Josiah. --Brian Olsen 07:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Sorry — it's late, and I just got back from seeing The Police. My brain is slightly addled. Or slightly more than usual, anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May stray into original research and much of the material is (or can be) adequately covered elsewhere. Dbromage 00:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes this page is about the Doctors life. From his youth of an old man to his old young self portrayed by David Tennant. This page is to show all the Doctor Who stories in order of the Doctors life and his companions. It is still progress of being completed so I would much ablige if it didn't get deleted as it is not finished plus there isn't another page like this one so it is not violating anything and some of the info I'm getting help from the official Doctor Who website, Outpost Gallifrey and Big Finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.22.86 (talk • contribs) (Victory93, as explained in this comment)

Victory93 - if that previous comment was yours, please log-in to your account, then re-edit the comment to add your correct signature at the end. You need to be logged-in to use your Wikipedia name, that's to make sure nobody can impersonate you. --Parsifal _Hello 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Victory93 (assuming the IP comment was posted by him) is getting help from the official Doctor Who website or other WP:Reliable sources, that could clear up the question of WP:Original research, by making the information WP:Verifiable. Also, it seems like from Victory93' comment that the title of the article needs to be clarified if it is kept, to refer to the life story of the Doctor, not the chronology of the episodes.

Victory93, can you tell us more about how the official Doctor Who website or the others are helping? Do you have references or links you could add to your article to show that the information is based on the official version from the publisher? That would make a difference to being able to keep the article. --Parsifal _Hello 08:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that Victory93 means that he is using information from those sites, and not that anyone officially connected with the sites is assisting him. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, then again, even if he's only using information from there - if it is a reliable source, that could make the difference in whether or not original research is happening. Let's see what Victory93 says about it when he replies.

Delete. There should be some recognition of the effort involved, but this page unfortunately fails to meet the criteria for being kept. It overlaps existing articles, it requires OR and theories to place many of the non-television stories, it is really just a big list, and it is likely to devolve into an extensive collection of speculation. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his information is supported by new references from the publisher, then it would not be speculation. There are many lists on Wikipedia, the questions here are - does this particular list have support from references, and does it duplicate other lists or provide different information? If it's organized by the age of the Doctor rather than the chronology of the episodes, then it does not overlap the others, so the bottom line is, is it original research? Without new references, apparently it is OR. But if the publisher's website provides new sourced information, we should consider that in making the determination. --Parsifal _Hello 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Keep~~ This page that I created does not duplicate other lists. Plus it is not harming anyone or any other page on Wikipedia. Victory93 2/8/2007

That should not be a reason to keep. See WP:HARMLESS Corpx 09:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Victory93, please clarify if you wrote the earlier comment that begins with "Yes this page is about the Doctors life." If so, you will have to retract one of your "Keep" votes. If that is not you, please indicate this as well as there are strong parallels between both entries. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Yes that was me and yes it is about the Doctors life but story chronology of the Doctor's life and his companions which there isn't a page like this in Wikipedia.Victory93 2/8/2007

Comment there seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of this list. the Doctor's time travel adventures are run sequentially on television. There two kinds of Dr Who novels: simple novelisations of the TV series (published out of sequence, sometimes many years after the original broadcast); there are also novels of adventures never seen on or proposed for television. All of these novels are published out of chronological order, from the Doctor's point of view. This list we're discussing is an attempt to string all stories (TV, book or whatever) into the order that the Doctor experiences them. Example (all made up, but just to illustrate):

We see:

1965 - A TV episode has the First Doctor travelling back in time to meet Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
1970 - A Third Doctor TV episode is set in the present (1970).
1975 - The Lincoln story is novelised.
1995 - A novel appears of an adventure that never appears on television - the Second Doctor meets napoleon in 1800.

The Doctor sees:

A visit to Lincoln;
A visit to Napoleon;
An adventure in 1970.

This is a very simplified version of course but it explains the point, I hope. Totnesmartin 10:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — about sources: several websites do exist which have constructed this sort of "timeline of the Doctor's travels". The most comprehensive and thoroughly updated is the Doctor Who Reference Guide; there's also the Canon Keeper's Guide to Doctor Who at Outpost Gallifrey (which hasn't been updated in a few years), and the incomplete Doctor's Timeline at whoniverse.org. All of these are written by fans, and may or may not meet the standards of WP:RS — none of them would be uncontroversially reliable. The BBC does not have a list of this sort, incorporating the non-TV media with the episodes and serials of the TV show. It's true that the fan pages could be used as sources for the list, but the problem is that they contradict each other, especially in the areas like the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Doctors, where there is more material from the spin-offs than from the television series. It might be possible to construct a list that pointed out that certain data points are unclear, or noted "such-and-such a source places this story here, but so-and-so places it there", but that would be awfully difficult to do without straying into original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only do the sources that Josiah Rowe noted above exist, which while "written by fans" were as well-researched and peer-reviewed as many printed published books (especially the Outpost Gallifrey one, which shows six primary researchers and acknowledges dozens of other people involved in vetting the information), there also exist published books which can be used as reliable sources for this article, including Lance Parkin's AHistory, the About Time series by Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood, and The DisContinuity Guide, and I, Who. Where sources agree about where stories belong in the Doctor's timeline, they can unequivocally be put in their proper place in this article. Where they don't, NPOV can be applied and the stories can be listed separately from the main chronology, indicating where the different sources place them. Perhaps the best approach is to split this into sections for each incarnation of the Doctor, with each section containing an ordered list of stories which can be ordered from reliable sources, and an unordered list of stories with explanations of how the different sources treat them with respect to the Doctor's timeline. Simply put, there are enough reliable sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. DHowell 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: DHowell's suggestion has swayed me — I've changed my !vote from "delete" to "neutral". I still think it would be very difficult to avoid original research in an article of this kind, but DHowell's model shows that it might not be impossible. (COI disclaimer: I'm one of the "dozens of other people" credited on the Outpost Gallifrey page, so I shouldn't be involved in the determination of whether it's a reliable source or not.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've also changed my !vote (mine changed from "neutral" to "keep"). I've learned a lot about the topic since the AfD started. My initial comment was one of the earliest, but with the considerable added information I now believe that the article should at least be kept for a while so editors can work on sourcing the information. Information that is not sourced will have to be removed, but some of the information in the article can certainly be sourced, so it's too soon to delete the entire article just because all the sources have not yet been found. We have many articles that are tagged {{unreferenced}} and not deleted while editors work to improve them. Also, as has been clarified in the discussions above, this article does not duplicate any other way of organizing the Dr. Who information so it can be a valuable article once it is supported by proper references. Meanwhile, info that does not have sources can be specifically tagged with {{fact}} or moved to the talk page while sources are located. --Parsifal _Hello 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage_Au_Pays_Des_Nouveaux_Gourous[edit]

AfDs for this article:

non notable single show of a tv seriesSpacefarer 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what's changed since the last AfD that resulted in a keep. There seems to have been a controversy and media coverage, so it seems worth keeping to me. I do think the article could be trimmed down and generally cleaned up, though. --Delirium 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced article about a controversy, and covered by the media.Merkinsmum 12:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but... The article says that there were repercussions in the Australia and the US. Since this is the English Wikipedia the article should probably concentrate a bit more on them. Anynobody 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The French Game[edit]

No sources. Alomst surely non-notable, and sections at least are celarly a hoax. Not quite a speedy, and given the tenacious editing by the creator, prod would be pointless. DES ^(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanihoax that completely fails WP:V. Deor 10:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 11:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. An elaborate but transparent hoax. A game invented by a family claiming to be descendants of Jesus? Jesus must be turning in his grave. Uh, I mean falling from a cloud. Er, weeping? Whatever. As the French would say, n'importe quoi. --Targeman 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural fundemental of pockets of French Acadia across the world. Not a specific single-family game, but one played with children across a diverse range. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjwhite23 (talk • contribs).
- If so, can we have some sources to indicate this please? Some actual evidence of notability? and is the part about descent from Jesus also a part of, er French Arcadia's "Cultural fundementals"? DES ^(talk) 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will work on some Internet based citations; by nature, the original family and current players of the game have not necessarily felt the need to express themselves electronically, hence the new article. I will concede that the Christ lineage is both an original family belief, and corroborated by recent non-fiction sparked from interest in the fiction novel "The da Vinci Code," the latter appears "un-citable" due to non-GFDL issues. Please grant me some leeway in establishing the notable references you require. Is it possible to upload multimedia content of interviews or actual game-playing?Mjwhite23 15:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, i am inclined to doubt that anything conencted with or inspired by The da Vinci Code is a relaible source. But we'll see when you give actual citations. Online citations are not required, if you can give verifiable published print citations instead. Note that even if this is an actual family tradition, and not a recent hoax, unless there has been published discussion of it somewhere it is either original research or non-notable or both. This is true of both the game and the "descent". DES ^(talk) 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, as to interveiws or "gamerplay" it is better to link to these on some other site than to uplaod them to wikipedia. But unless they were actully published by somewhere that wopudl constiture a reliable source they will have little value in any case. DES ^(talk) 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I re-read this article carefully and realized just how hilarious it is. I can't help but LMAO at things like "Viola is the French Canadian grandmother/mother of Matthew White" (I don't want to know how that works), "Questioning the object of The French Game, especially by newcomers, is considered in poor taste, and typically discouraged" (does that include Wikipedians?), "if all present are comfortable with the rules and expectations, then the "most French" person will begin. This person is usually Danielle Robinson" (how much did she score on the French-o-meter?), "The potential exists that The French Game was played by Christ himself" (an avid gambler as we all know), or "When an individual flips over the Ace of Spaces, all participants will hide their teeth and fingernails" (by sinking them in my throat?). Thank you for these truly priceless quotes, they made my day. --Targeman 17:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly a joke written in a style so as to look encyclopedic at first glance. --Metropolitan90 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please give this a chance; it is not a joke. I am working on verified references that will satisfy your requirements.24.198.85.12 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded legitimate media of a French Game contest; contacting "The Saint John Valley Times" Monday for citation material of the aforementioned in news media. Mjwhite23 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that YouTube videos are generally not reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please. A blurry and mute (!) video showing a dozen young people taking turns flipping cards and drinking beer. A set of pics showing totally random stuff. I'm eagerly waiting for your next source for a laugh but I'm afraid you're going nowhere with this. --Targeman 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Audio is fixed now; the narration was the most important part. Still working on the print newspaper references. The Flickr link shows various folks across the country playing The French Game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.239.6 (talk • contribs) — 69.207.239.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Come on. A video of a bunch of rowdy college kids drinking and killing time with a deck of cards, and pics of 4 (four) Flickr users who all know one another ([69]) playing this "French Game" in the same bar (or canteen, or whatever). Now I like a good joke like anyone, but this has gone too far. Taking people for idiots should be a speedy delete offense IMO. Enough of this nonsense. --Targeman 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Site Added to external links; www.thefrenchgame.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk • contribs)

Yep, created yesterday. By yourself. [70] --Targeman 18:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; this was an effort to reach out electronically. Old meeting notices were via US Mail on printed pamphlets. I was hoping to establish good faith with members of an electronic encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk • contribs)

Me and my friends have a tradition (started by Qin Shi Huang) of gathering once in a while and eating fries on Rue Vanderkindere, after which we get wasted on beer and watch a rented DVD in my house. Up till now, I've used carrier pigeons to send out invitations, but from now on please visit eatfrieswithtargeman.com for upcoming events at my place. --Targeman 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should play The French Game with them! I can send you information on starting up your local chapter. (Actually, now I guess I can put it on my web site.) Stay tuned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.255.72 (talk • contribs) — 69.207.255.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hoegaarden I first consumed this in Charlottetown, Price Edward Island. Local "Belgian" fries are about the best I've ever had. You should visit Targe... Belgian Fries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk • contribs)

OK guys, we've had a laugh, now I suggest this AfD be closed asap. The article doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to survive. --Targeman 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Please, I'm still waiting on my newspaper citations. What is the harm in giving this some time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.148.121 (talk • contribs)
Comment. Please remember to sign your messages on this page by ending them with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Also, if you are a registered editor, please log in before posting rather than leaving yourself identified only by your IP address. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I'm often on several machines (and locations) all at once. I will make a point to sign-in. Thanks! Mjwhite23 13:18, 31 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. Majorly (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thire[edit]

tagged speedy, contested and speedy tag removed; character from Star Wars is sufficient grounds for an assertion of notability, but I've taken it here. No opinion. Carlossuarez46 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as fancruft, perhaps someone with membership can transwiki to Wookiepedia or whatever it is. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to delete this page. I originaly forgot to add the main source but it's up now. The page is detailed and informative. The only reason that I can see for anyone fighting to get rid of it now is for some sick sense of acomplishment, knowing they had a hand in taking down someone elses article. Jts21 18:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need independent reliable sources to establish notability Corpx 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got that, his bio on the official starwars site is as reliable as it gets. That source is more reliable than half the sources used on this site. Not to mention it is independent of the book I listed as another source. Jts21 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Star wars site is not independent Corpx
So all this fuss is over the fact that my information is official and I didn't add some fansite with the same exact info as a source? Jts21 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, hopefully this will stop now. Jts21 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fan sites dont count as reliable sources Corpx 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look my sources are fine I've added to them and checked other wiki articles to see what they used as sources, there's no longer a problem so stop giving me a hard time, okay? Jts21 20:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of independent reliable sources. Oyster guitarist 20:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that people are really nit picky about sources in a desperate attempt to get those little stars in their profiles but look my sources are fine if you want proof check thses pages out ARC Trooper A-17, Arc trooper, Imperial stormtrooper, or just about any other star wars character on this site, they all lack sources or just list the official star wars sites databank as the only source, some even lack that. They aren't being deleted. The reason my page was put up for deletion was because it was originaly a mess, but I cleaned it up. Sources weren't even the problem. Jts21 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should all be deleted then, if they're lacking "significant coverage from independent reliable sources. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Corpx 20:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All deleting them does is take knowledge away from people. Look the reason those rules were made was to ensure that what was posted on this site is fact. All these things are obviously fact since they appear in credible sources regardless of whether they meet you strict standards. Fact is theres no problem with them and listing more sources wont make them any more true. The people who run this site have final say in this and i'll leave this to them, not you to decide if my sources prove what I wrote is fact. I fixed what they said was wrong about my page.Jts21 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wookipedia already has an entry on this. I dont think an encyclopedia is the place to list minor characters who have no notability Corpx 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what your problem is, do you get your jollies off of harassing people or what? I'm leaving this up to the staff to decide. He's a character who's appeared multiple times in the movie, become an action figure, and had expanded universe bios written for him, as well as possibly appearing later on in the new cartoon. If you don't like that i've made a page about him thats fine, you've made it clear but enough, okay? With the effort you've put into trying to get this page deleted its clear that you either enjoy PO'ing people or spend all your time on wikipedia trying to increase the rank of your vandalism star thing at the expense of other people. I personly think thats wrong. FYI I checked wp:otherstuffexists and my article should be fine, it's not too short and I've proven the information to be true. Smaller characters than him have their own articles, this character appears enough that he deserves one too.Jts21 21:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the lists of Minor characters in Star Wars. I'm not sure whether Thire fits best in List of minor Star Wars Imperial characters or the general List of minor Star Wars characters, but I'm sure there's a place for him in one of those lists. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Josiah Rowe seems fair. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources. Harlowraman 20:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TaoLinux[edit]

Low-quality article on non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 04:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no information here except that the distribution was a Red Hat clone, and that it no longer exists. Unless there's something special about the distribution that's not mentioned here, this doesn't seem particularly notable. The fact that it's no longer available isn't per se a reason for deletion, but it is a reason that the article is unlikely to improve. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there are hidden sources that establish its notability I wouldn't imagine any being written, ever. Not notable for innovation, no notable developers, and no sizable user base. tdmg 06:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. I was found this webpage, Tao Linux]. about Tao Linux distribution.--V A R G U X 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC) ^{Comments to: V A R G U X}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers[edit]

This article essentially lists every character who has set foot inside the title character's time ship over the forty-plus-year history of the series. If this isn't fancruft, I'd like to see what is. I see very little of encyclopedic value in this list, and yet the original poster insists on including it in the overall series template. So I throw it to the birds. What say ye, birds? Aderack 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smacks of a great deal of WP:OR. Resolute 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list that doesn't illustrate anything, and isn't useful for navigation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage for "Doctor Who TARDIS travellers" Most of these "doctors" also need to be deleted because they're lacking "significant coverage" from independent real world sources Corpx 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...you...can't mean the Doctors, the protagonists of Doctor Who, can you? It'd be like deleting Luke Skywalker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the companions of these doctors Corpx 06:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like deleting Chewbacca or C-3PO. Which, for all I know, you'd advocate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its all about significant coverage from independent sources. Btw, Chewbacca has plenty of "significant coverage" Corpx 15:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do Rose Tyler and Sarah Jane Smith and Jack Harkness and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, even when you eliminate real people who happen to share their names. And that's just using Google News, which is not the only tool for finding reliable, independent sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those hits give "significant coverage" to Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? Corpx

This one, this one, this one, this one... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I opened up the factiva.com links and the first had a 1 line mention of this character - "The three special guests come in the shape of Nicholas Courtney, better known as Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart; Steve Emerson". How exactly is this significant coverage? The same for the second factiva link - "Veteran support player Nicholas Courtney has appeared alongside every Doctor, [except Colin Baker's], in the role of Brigadier Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart, a traditional stiff British military man who "never encountered an alien that he didn't attempt to shoot or blow up".". Again, how is this significant coverage ? Corpx 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who companions says the good Brigadier is a "disputed companion" who only hopped in the TARDIS once. I think that article says all that needs to be said about his TARDIS travelling. This list appears to be redundant fancruft. Canuckle 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx and I aren't even arguing about this article, which we both agree should be deleted. We're arguing because of his snide comment that these major Doctor Who characters shouldn't even have pages of their own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody helped me out on the LexisNexis article and its also here for viewing. The Brigadier is mentioned twice and I dont think that gives significant coverage either. Corpx 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That this is potentially a list of characters with no notability established? Corpx 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize that every item on a list had to have notability established. Oh, wait — it doesn't. I just hope that if you decide to put Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart up for AfD you have the courtesy to inform the Doctor Who WikiProject, so they can take the time and trouble to add all that "significant coverage" to the article. The coverage isn't in the article yet, but it's out there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improvement though, like formatting and sources (and yes they exist). This list is a usefull reference within the Doctor Who universe, and it the only way to display the corrolations between all the main characters throughout the show's 30(!) year history. Defenitely not fancruft! --Edokter (Talk) 09:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/mergeAfter some more thought, it is probably best to integrate any information that is not already covered in Doctor Who companions into that article. --Edokter (Talk) 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this artical could be good, but it needs some changes, for example we already have a list of companions artical, so the 'companion' part of the artical and the 'others' part of the artical should be merged (I'll do this now). Other then that we'll need sources on some of the things written in the artical -but that shouldn't be too hard. I wouldn't delete the artical now before its had a chance to improve, i'd wait until after the changes. Wiggstar69 10:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of this list is largely redundant. That the various Doctors and companions travel in the TARDIS is well covered elsewhere, and we already have articles that detail all of these: Doctor (Doctor Who) & Doctor Who companions. Listing the remaining characters is fancruft — who else, apart from a fanatical completist, would want all these mainly one-off TARDIS journeys listed? This is surely not notable. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've simplified the artical, its no longer in three parts and now in only one which 'I feel' has improved it, before when you looked at the first two parts (Doctors & Companions) you could have got the information from other places on wikipedia, meaning it was pointless having it on it own.--Wiggstar69 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the encyclopedic content of this is redundant with Companion (Doctor Who), and (as Mark points out) the one-off travelers really don't merit a list of their own. I'm probably one of the most obsessive Doctor Who fans on Wikipedia, and even I think this unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As an uber-fan, I actually found this kind of interesting; still, I have to admit it's not particularly encyclopedic on its own. The info on the one-off travellers is available in the articles for the episode in question, and I don't really see the notability in having them collected in one list. Readers may look for robots, or monsters, or companions in Doctor Who; I'm not sure they'd be looking for minor characters who took one trip in the TARDIS. --Brian Olsen 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - This particular article isn't very encyclopedic, but some of the information could be listed on the TARDIS page (if it isn't already). But if the information is duplicated in other articles, I don't see why this one should stay. Editmaniac 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I kind of liked this artical the others above have swayed me, I hate to just jump on the bandwagon but it hasn't really got a place in wikipedia (shame). Wiggstar69 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant. DonQuixote 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant -- duplicates the companions article. And virtually all of the names that would be added (beyond the companions and other notable co-stars of the series) would be un-notable characters who wouldn't warrant a separate article beyond a mention in the applicate episode or story arc article. For the record, however, I vehemently oppose Corpx's assertion that articles based upon notable co-stars and even lead characters from Doctor Who should be deleted. 23skidoo 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice idea but rather pointless.(Black Dalek 12:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article was previously part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions, where the articles were kept, mainly because of the confusion caused by lumping clearly notable articles with ones of questionable notability. Meta lists this as the 124th largest Wikipedia, with only around 2,000 articles. More importantly though, there's is no indication that there are reliable, third-party sources. 17Drew 03:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the notability of this particular Wikipedia isn't asserted at all. Homestarmy 04:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing here but statistics which would belong better in List of Wikipedias. Delete, without prejudice against an article should other information about this edition become available. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB due to lack of independent sources. Foreign-language Wikipedias are not automatically entitled to be the subjects of articles in the English Wikipedia; they need reliable sources just as non-Wikimedia Foundation sites do. --Metropolitan90 05:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoot mon delete Apparently, an article about a Wiki written in a rendition of DIALECT (which oi canna beliff egzists, buddit do). I'm waitin' for "Wikipedia Y'all" to be created next, or "Talk like a pirate Wikipedia". Even if written by a Scotsman, an insult to Scotland. Mandsford 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Enamait[edit]

Delete per WP:BIO. Individual is non-notable in the sport of competitive boxing and has not substantially contributed to the fitness scene. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 06:40, 29 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 (Keep votes only stated article did not qualify for speedy deletion )CitiCat^♫ 01:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Van Dolson[edit]

May not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Contested speedy that would have also been contested as a proposed deletion. Contributor believes that the subject's contributions as an author are enough to establish notability. At least the editor that placed the request for speedy deletion does not. Sancho 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a candidate for speedy deletion, as there is an assertion of notability: the subject has published three books. ●DanMS • Talk 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly not a good speedy candidate. There are already sufficient claims of significance that an A7 simply does not apply. But there are more sources to be found out there. Try this google scholar search and this corresponding google books search. I am confident there is enough here to domonstrate notability and significantly improve the article. DES ^(talk) 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first 2 comments are ample reason why WP:CSD doesn't apply, but that's not the standard to be applied here. I differ with DES above: Thirteen hits at google scholar and twelve at google books doesn't connote "notability", you'd be hard pressed to find any professor who cannot achieve those numbers (see more below). This guy just doesn't pass WP:BIO, WP:N; his books for all we know were vanity press, that they're not available from Amazon.com makes me a little more than suspicious that they may be. If this guy were a college professor (see the high hurdle at WP:PROF he'd have been gone in nothng flat, that he's a theologian makes the article hardly more keepable. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that the size of the search results alone is not proof of notability. The results of the regular google search convince me that these books are being used regualrly by a significant fraction of Seventh Day Adventists, but it is unleasr which if any of those hits represent reliable sources. Lots of them seem to eb local church newsletters and the like. But when i see someoen who seems to have significant piopular following and also more than a modicum of academic discussion, and when his books are being cited by others, i strongly suspect that the subject is notable enough for an article. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the wrong standards are being discussed --he's just a religious author. he's not a college professor, and he's not a theologian. theologians are scholars. He's a missionary who has written some simple books summarizing his church's belief, and should be judged by that standard. but I'd still say Delete because there is no independent evidence that any of the books are in the least notable. DGG (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per DES Harlowraman 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Zimmer[edit]

Nonnotable scientist; no references. A Google search shows 20,000 hits for the name, but less than 1,000 with the word "cannabinoid" added, probably because of several men sharing the same name. Not every scientist who writes a few papers is notable; and if he really wrote more than 100, we need a reference for that. Shalom ^Hello 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two heavily-cited cannabinoid papers are among the first five found by this Google scholar search. —David Eppstein 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable unless citations are provided. Harlowraman 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep beyond question--Google Scholar, which is not complete, the most cited paper in 1999 in PNAS, one of the three top general science journals, was cited 323 times . The second, in nature genetics, also unquestionably top rank, 262 times, etc. He has about 30 papers cited 30 times or more. This is very high citations and enough to show first, that the peer-reviewers of these journals thought the work important, and several hundred of his colleagues did likewise to the extent that they cited it. If you go back and check those Google results, you'll find that almost all of them actually refer to him. The article was inadequate, but everything was there in the linked web site or Google Scholar. I started to upgrade the article. DGG (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. European Professor, head of lab, two very highly cited papers. Medline finds 51 papers under 'Zimmer, Andreas', including high-prestige general journals such as Science (2), Nature & PNAS (several), as well as many first-rank specialist journals eg Nature Neuroscience, Molecular Pharmacology, Journal of Neuroscience, Cell, Nature Methods, Gastroenterology, Mol Cell Biol etc, including expert reviews. There may well be others under 'Zimmer, A' (184 hits), but they're mixed up with others of the same name. Clearly meets my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 11:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso and DGG. The article doesn't make it clear, but he does pass WP:PROF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar evidence is sufficient of notability: hundreds of hits; google books seems to show at least 2 guys of the same name (the other seems to be interested in the history of Wroclaw/Breslau). Carlossuarez46 00:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG and Espresso Addict research above. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (er, ignore that last edit summary - too many 'delete's tonight) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:33, 30 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 — Caknuck 07:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NETviews[edit]

Non-notable neologism Q ^{T C} 02:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A neo all the same :) tdmg 06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 21:03, 29 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, then delete. Navou ^banter 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once lost films[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable list. Oli Filth 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article Lost film already has such a list. While that list is also unsourced, the article is of far better quality than this one. This could theoretically be brought back if there was anything even resembling sourcing. Montco 02:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the much better Lost film, then delete. Clarityfiend 03:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect be bold and redirect it to Lost film. Lugnuts 08:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some useful information that could be added to Lost film. Note to Chinnychinchin, do like lugnuts says and "be bold"... in other words, learn to use double brackets "" and "" on either side of items that may be listed in Wikipedia. If they're in Wiki, they become blue-links, and if they aren't, they become red-links. Sorry to insult the intelligence of others on the board, but author needs a tip on editing. Mandsford 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially lost film[edit]

Unreferenced, non-notable list. Oli Filth 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article Lost film already has such a list. While that list is also unsourced, the article is of far better quality than this one. This could theoretically be brought back if there was anything even resembling sourcing. Montco 02:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article Lost Film has a list .Feel no need for another list. Harlowraman 04:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; furthermore, a bunch of the films listed were never lost. (A film which had some scenes removed before release is "edited", not "partially lost".) Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect be bold and redirect it to Lost film. Lugnuts 08:09, 29 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 author has blanked the page. But|seriously|folks 06:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of lost films[edit]

Unexplained, unreferenced, possibly non-notable list. Oli Filth 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article Lost film already has such a list. While that list is also unsourced, the article is of far better quality than this one. This could theoretically be brought back if there was anything even resembling sourcing. Montco 02:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The article's creator has blanked the page. James Luftan ^contribs 03:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Like mentioned, user blanked the page. --esanchez _{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I lost a roll of film once too. -- But|seriously|folks 06:20, 29 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. --Core desat 07:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infest (band)[edit]

Also included:

Non-notable band. This fan site even admits the band "Infest never toured or even played outside of California for that matter." They don't appear to have been on a major label. No indication of importance. IrishGuy ^talk 01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is one of the most influential hardcore bands of all time! They are considered the pioneers and creators of the entire power-violence genre. They were and still are extremely important to the hardcore punk scene in general. - Xtheblademaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtheblademaster (talk • contribs)

Obviously whoever wants to delete this article has never attended a hardcore punk show. Go there. You see kids with Infest shirts. In the underground music scene this band is HUGE. Regardless if they were famous during their time, neither were most painters. What does that mean? Ask any hardcore kid who Infest is, they will know.--WEARESPLEEN 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, please provide sources to verify it. IrishGuy ^talk 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band seems to be the primary influence on the power violence sub-genre of hardcore punk. Referencing this article, it may pass WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles 7.: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". An expert may be needed for more verifiable sources as it's an underground music style from 20 years ago and thus doesn't show up in a Google search. dissolve ^talk 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It is non-notable. -Flubeca^Talk 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, non-notable band, ~~article~~ MySpace site even admits non-notability. I included their album, 1st Demo as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:31, 29 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 stub and rewrite, if not done already. Essentially, keep. —Kurykh 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ki-o-rahi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ki-o-rahi

Unsourced, suspected hoax. The article appears to be a concoction, or at least the part of it purporting that the game is an old one based on traditional Māori legend. The translations for the some of the key words given are not consistent with the authoritative dictionaries of the Māori language, and the sources given appear to be personal websites with no authority, or unverifiable and unlikely television crew sources. Am also nominating The Legend of Rahi for the same reasons Kahuroa 02:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds like an obvious hoax to me Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep and Rewrite, per the suggestions below.[reply]
Delete. Support Kahuroa's position. Also, most of it is nonsense -- the second and third pars for example. Moriori 02:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep and Rewrite per suggestions. Moriori[reply]
I agree most of it is nonsense. There are some reliable sources on the talk page (in particular [71]), so I suggest it be trimmed down to a stub containing only well-verified facts.-gadfium 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Harlowraman 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Changed to Keep and Rewrite, per the suggestions below. Harlowraman 05:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modify the request? - As Moriori points out, a reliable source has been found for part of the article, so I agree with the suggestion that it be trimmed down to a stub containing just the verified facts - it seems that this is indeed a game played in very recent years, and that it also appears to lack any 'history' in Māori tradition. However, it also seems pretty clear that the article The Legend of Rahi has been part of an ongoing project to manufacture a 'traditional history' for it. If those who have voted above are agreeable to Moriori's suggestion, I will rewrite the article Kahuroa 10:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and restart, avoiding the personal site [72] as a source - this seems rather similar to the case of Haggis hurling, a real sport with an invented tradition. Gordonofcartoon 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and let Kahuroa restart as editor Kahuroa will be responsible researching and editing the topic, including, if it proves to be the case, the attempt to manufacture a traditional history. Let me know if I can help, but please begin editing any doubtful material right now--this does not require that you wait for this AfD and agreement if you already have found that some material is incorrect. KP Botany 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, agree, will do. I think I would rather use the NZ Herald article that is mentioned on the talk page of the article as the source, rather than the personal webpage that User:Gordonofcartoon mentions above. This is because I strongly suspect that the personal webpage was given its information from the same person who is behind the article we are dealing with here. In the meantime I have removed some dubious references that the author inserted in the last 24 hours. I happened to have the book he cited, and there was nothing in it to support the claims made, so I removed the references and asked for page numbers. He has responded by basically blanking the page and ranting about me on the talk page. Anyway, I will rewrite it now as a stub Kahuroa 05:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kahuroa 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear totally and rewrite from scratch, for great justice! McLarenJAB 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From proper research we completed from Otago University the ki-o-rahi tournament in 2006 did not eventuate in Northland(!?), since when has a panui(notice) from any source seen as verifiable information? Otago uni did host a tournament last year however but it would be foolish to claim it was the "first". It appears as if Kahuroa is scraping the barrell with her ability to actually construct a viable stub here. Is Kahuroa going to continue to highlight any other schools in NZ which play ki-o-rahi? I understand several schools in her Tainui rohe also have a ki-o-orahi history including Waikato uni and Ngaaruawahia College, is she aware of this? 'Patu Hohepa' is discredited as being capable of commenting on traditional sports despite the NZ Herald angle - "waka ama" and "kapa haka" despite Kahuroa's assertion to the contrary, do not appear in traditional Maori literature either! There is a lot of fluff in this stubb but hardly any substance. A poor effort. sossos

We seem to be going around in circles here - the question is whether there are any old references to Ki-o-rahi that can be used here, not whether it is being played now, that is not disputed. Certainly many old games went unrecorded and were lost, and if Ki-o-rahi is one that survived from pre-European times, that would be, as Hohepa said, exciting, and could make this article really interesting. So I hope something can be found that was written in the interval from 1800 on. Point taken about the notice, I have removed that, leaving the Herald article as the only source supporting the article Kahuroa 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and restart , Has pretty much happened already - SimonLyall 08:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame the herald failed to contact more of the right people in their article on ki-o-rahi. The article seems to be written in a cynical way describing the game as being played in a 'few scattered locations' - it in effect suppresses and minimises traditional Maori ball game adherence and hardly celebrates the achievement of a Maori game being seen as worthwhile and educationally viable in the US curriculum! The article conveniently excludes the Manawatu stronghold where several thousand play! and Patu as a traditional sports commentator??? The ABM centre in South Auckland also has an 8 team league, as did Auckland East (8 teams) which started in the 1980s that expanded and called it by another name - typical of Maori games. Not forgetting our modest involvement in Dunedin.

However my biggest concern regarding your right really Kahuroa to be able to comment and scribe on this taonga Maori is how you could have missed the obvious typo - the Maori King Movement is from the 1870s NOT the 1970s. So are you going to correct that?

As you have just realised by looking up "waka ama" and "kapa haka", they did not exist traditionally, going by your criteria, because you cannot find even 1 reference to them in the 1800s.The same applies to ki-o-rahi, look up hapu specific names for the game. Also you will need to research via traditional weavers because their knowledges relate directly to the ancient ki (also kui, ta, etc ) or ball artefacts that are still woven today and are a direct, tangible, link to the ancient Maori ball game.

In this field a lot of bastardisation occurs because of tin pot researchers, no wonder the kaumatua will have as little to do with the media as possible. The article in yesterdays herald about Machu Pichu - all the local Peruvians knew where the ruins were but that wasn't official until Bingham 'discovered' them in 1913! pretty much sums up Maori awareness of our taonga (ball games) and Pakeha reaction to it.

I hazard to guess you are a little out of touch when it comes to Maori ball game traditions - perhaps you need to embrace your marae a little better? I am not going around in circles, you are, chasing your tail because it is obvious from your stub that you are restricted by buttons. You would be far safer just to leave up 'Ki-o-Rahi' as a heading and leave it as that for others to writeup properly. Your creedence in the Maori world could be affected if it gets out about the hatchet job your doing here, just as Patu became the laughing stock because of his naieve comments.

If kaumatua were regarded as 'genuine sources', on this site, as they are for example with the Waitangi Tribunal, then there would be a full appreciation on ki-o-rahi and you could simply walk on down to your local (Turangawaewae?) for some real education. I would guess you have a few letters behind your name? but no real understanding in this field? sossos

Stub and restart per virtually everyone above me. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Sossos: Just a few for you to start with. For KAPA HAKA Te Waka Maori o Ahuriri, 5 June 1856:10; Te Waka Maori o Aotearoa 9 May 1884:4; Te Tiupiri, 1 April 1900:8 (letter dated 26th. Tihema 1899); for WAKA AMA Nga Mahi a nga Tupuna, Grey, 1854 (Story of Māui); Maori Polynesian Comparative Dictionary, Edward Tregear, 1891, and Te Pipiwharauroa, He Kupu Whakamarama Tihema 1908:7. Kahuroa 07:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Kahuroa who is trying to be clever? You have not provided any references above for specifically "WAKA AMA" (don't shorten it to just "waka") or "KAPA HAKA".The modern term,some assume, for haka is kapa haka. Kapa Haka is a relatively new word and waka ama is a Pasifika word for their form of boat racing. Read up on Karetu and the doubts expressd in his book about the traditional relevance of "kapa haka" today having any relevance to "haka" of yesteryear. Many Kaumatua firmly believe kapa haka is really just modern dance bereft of traditional tikanga. Waka ama was NEVER practiced traditionally. I'm just trying to provide an analogy here with traditional ball sports. Hop down to your marae, put in your specific ball game name and then see how you go. In the article I started I simply substituted the modern term ki-o-rahi, the accepted generalised term these days for all trad. Maori ball sports, instead of the myriad of traditional names - some of which certain hapu don't want splashed about anyway. You are seriously floundering in this field, you need the ahua, not the button pushing power to do a resonable job on this subject. The above references are a laugh and Tregear? sossos

In fact these are old traditional Māori words, and these are valid references. Waka ama is a genuine Māori term. Our tupuna did not use waka ama as much as in Pasifika, but they did have them. Although they were becoming rare by Cook's time, waka ama are mentioned in old waiata for one thing! Here's the link to an old waiata in a Pipiwharauroa issue. Waka ama is highlighted in yellow, and if you click on the WHAKAAHUA NUI link you can see how it appeared in the original newspaper of 1908. There is a even brief mention of waka ama/outrigger canoes in New Zealand around the time of Cook on page 87 of Vaka Moana -Voyages of the Ancestors a brand new 2007 book which should be in most bookstores right now if you want to take a look. Anyway, I won't reply on this page anymore since I think that its probably time to close this. Kahuroa 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-Nucleonic Cyborg Summoning (reissue)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Band's article was recently deleted. —« ANIMUM » 00:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~as A7, no assertation of notability. Tagged. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Upon further research, it seems this band may in fact be notable. At least one album was reviewed on All Music, passing WP:BAND #1, and Colin Marston is a member of Dysrhythmia, passing WP:BAND #6. Speedy tag removed. --Action Jackson IV 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, band article has been made, group is somewhat notable so their albums must be notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same arguments as above. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article is currently undergoing AfD. —« ANIMUM » 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthrelm / Behold... The Arctopus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Orthrelm / Behold... The Arctopus

No assertion of notability. Band's article was recently deleted. —« ANIMUM » 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~as A7. Tagged. --Action Jackson IV 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Upon further research, it seems this band may in fact be notable. At least one album was reviewed on All Music, passing WP:BAND #1, and Colin Marston is a member of Dysrhythmia, passing WP:BAND #6. Tag removed. --Action Jackson IV 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, band article has been made, group is somewhat notable so their albums must be notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Orthrelm is a notable band, and half of this album is their work. Whether or not B...tA is notable is another issue entirely, but this album should be safe. Sidatio 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-Nucleonic Cyborg Summoning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No assertion of notability. Band's article was recently deleted. —« ANIMUM » 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) *Speedy as A7, no assertation of notability. Tagged. --Action Jackson IV 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further research, it seems this band may in fact be notable. At least one album was reviewed on All Music, passing WP:BAND #1, and Colin Marston is a member of Dysrhythmia, passing WP:BAND #6. Speedy tag removed. --Action Jackson IV 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, band article has been made, group is somewhat notable so their albums must be notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Harlowraman 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Release by a notable band, whose article still exists, therefore worthy of being kept. I can't see why this was nominated. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just because the article has been restored doesn't mean it's notable; it means it can't be speediable as per WP:BAND. Behold... The Arctopus is currently undergoing AfD. —« ANIMUM » 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was no claim of notability in this article per WP:PORNBIO and thus it fell under the speedy criteria for biographical articles.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Zinn[edit]

Little to no detail on this bio, it either needs something to show notability or deleting. Darrenhusted 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - cant find any awards or sources that'll maker her pass WP:PORNBIO Corpx 03:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The burden of asserting and proving notability lies with the authors of an article. -- Futurano 11:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as well. No sources are provided so the choice is simple. Xtreme racer 06:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for a pornstar? What do you want them to be, mainstream? Your site has many unknown pornstar profiles. You must be kidding. Do something better with your lives rather than focusing on this. --Knea2006 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability. It's almost speediable... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did PROD it but considered CSD, but thought that maybe someone could establish notability. Darrenhusted 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, no real article and being another porn star isnt notable enough, SqueakBox 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete based on inability to establish notability; no prejudice against re-creation if article can be improved such that notability can be established. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tekka Daimyo[edit]

Non-notable film, even if it is on IMDb (and was released on DVD). Google results turn up no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google searh shows up no reliable hits. Most of the websites which have a review for this film contains only short sentences with regards to this film. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no reviews of any kind which I could locate in English or in Japanese. Given the age, it's likely there aren't any online reviews (other than in blogs, on Amazon, etc.) If someone could find any reviews in printed sources, I would change my mind. I don't have access to any movie review sources for movies that old, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My own search couldn't bring up any reviews in Japanese, either, although there are reliable sources (e.g. Toei) that mention the film. My feeling is that there probably are print reviews, but we're unlikely to find any of them by the end of this AfD. Probably notable, but no evidence to show it. Dekimasu よ! 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the information in the article, and the AfD tag too, were removed on July 24, which probably explains the lack of interest in this discussion. Dekimasu よ! 09:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I replaced the AfD tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Conflicted A film from Toei, with Tomisaburo Wakayama is bound to have literature on it... somewhere... But, like the rest, I couldn't find it. So, I suppose, reluctant delete until something substantial is found to source and expand the article. Dekkappai 21:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: this and this were the best two sources to start with I could find. They seem to be more clues for further research than sources in themselves though. Dekkappai 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IrishGuy ^talk 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morstic[edit]

Non Noteable . . . something. Q ^{T C} 01:18, 29 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. El_C 18:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Messiah[edit]

Original research. Appears to be a religious commentary on the topic of messiahs. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as...oh, just read the article. Someguy1221 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No Sources, completely biased POV, not notable among other things. James Luftan ^contribs 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the speedy deletion tag and listed it here. If you can tell me what criterion it matches, I'll speedily delete it myself; unfortunately, I don't see that it does. Being OR, unsourced, or POV are not criteria for speedy deletion. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I had it tagged Speedy Delete/Context because at the time it was tagged, it was one sentence, incoherrent and contained borked html. Was cleaned up to a few incoherrent sentences and deborked when you removed the tag. Pharmboy 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And unfortunately, nonsense has to be "incoherent" to be speediable. Someguy1221 02:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete See talk for it. I had it tagged as speedy, someone felt it was better here. Pharmboy 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smite It. No sources, perhaps propaganda, fails most wikipedia requirements, I think.Ravenmasterq 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - starts off sounding to be possibly religious, but then just spirals. Speedy destruction I think. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire and brimstone Unfortunately, violations of WP:SOAP are not a speediable offense. However, you'd have to have a pretty active imagination to think this could be an encyclopedia article. Blueboy 96 04:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Sounds like an Uncyclopedia topic, they've got a large collection of articles on different made-up Jesus'. Homestarmy 04:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bury it under a thick layer of snow. --Targeman 11:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lynch it per above. Sa hm ed itor 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per above. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, because it's a bunch of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:OR and WP:V. --Pixelface 18:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock." - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Rahi[edit]

Unsourced, suspected hoax. The article appears to be a concoction, masquerading as a traditional Māori story. However it has many features suggesting that it is fake, including an overabundance of mythical creatures. The translations for the some of the key words given are not consistent with the authoritative dictionaries of the Māori language, and the sources given appear to be personal websites with no authority, or unverifiable and unlikely television crew sources Kahuroa 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [related topics and concerns, same author of article]:[reply]

Delete, most of the external links are actually just links to other Wikipedia articles, and none of the other links seem to corroborate this article's content, hoax or not, it is compleate and total OR. Homestarmy 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom .Harlowraman 04:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless reliable sources are provided to back up the article.-gadfium 06:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a New Zealand History page that includes the Legend of the Rahi. This story is not a hoax so I think that it should be kept. Delete (see my comment below.) --Onceonthisisland 14:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That website is not a reliable source - did you read the fine print at the bottom of the page you link to? It reads: Please be aware that this website is a personal homepage. It would therefore be wise to cross check information which I have presented here. We need a reliable source, sorry. Kahuroa 19:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for pointing that out. Since I read your comment, I've been searching the Web for another reliable Source for the "Legend of Rahi" and I haven't found any source for it. It's seeming to me more like a hoax, so I change my vote (see above) and I will try to read the fine print in the future.--Onceonthisisland 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sigh. It's a shame, poor guy's put some effort into it... maybe the legend will live on. In our hearts, or something. McLarenJAB 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder if this is a deliberate hoax, or simply the creation of a well intentioned but misguided poster. Moriori 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. - SimonLyall 08:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 that far from a WP:CSD#A3 anyway. Sandstein 12:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Holes in Happiness[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Nonnotable single, but two of the other singles from the same album already have articles. Shalom ^Hello 12:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not a single, but people are speculating that it may be in the future. Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazaban (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because it doesn't claim to be the next single. If there's more information about the song, regardless of single status, then it should be sourced and expanded. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable song. Article claims it wasn't even released as a single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:36, 29 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 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Davidov Stence[edit]

Only assertions of notability are having been in several non-notable bands, including Swedish Thunder, which will soon be deleted. Someguy1221 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no sources, and his band is nominated for deletion also. James Luftan ^contribs 01:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically not notable. No significant independent source that features him, let alone asserts notability. tdmg

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique creative thumbprint[edit]

unverifiable research NeilN 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline nonsense, and likely original thought (I wouldn't call this "research"). Someguy1221 01:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment left on talk page of article by Human Traffic): "Unique Creative Thumbprint is a term used by Dr. Bernie Warren in his research. It is not unverfiable. It is in fact verifiable. It can be reviewed in his academic writings listed in the bibliography in "Dr. Bernie Warren" entry." Someone has an idea, doesn't give it an article. There is still the notability issue. Someguy1221 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. O"R" essay/neologism with no record of use. And a preemptive 'thumbs down' on the redlink integrative theatre adjacent in Bernie Warren.[73] [74] Seattlenow 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely WP:OR, neologism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:37, 29 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. --Core desat 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASLinux Desktop[edit]

Low-quality article on poorly notable dead Linux distribution. The homepage confirms the article on "According to its ife cycle policy (12 months), next version will be published in May 2006." ("Con esta versión se establece una nueva política en los ciclos de vida (12 meses)"). This would make the next release at least 14 months behind schedule and the homepage wasn't updated since at least a year. I can't see how a distribution which was new when it died could come back to life after about 2 years, particularly since it was created when Debian was in a much worst situation on the desktop. Nevertheless, 80 000 preliminary Google hits show that the distro had *some* notability. Still, I realized it has only 160 non-ignored results (see http://www.google.fr/search?q=ASLinux+-wikipedia&hl=fr&start=170&sa=N). That's very little for a Linux distro. Chealer 00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every distro is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis, and ghits aren't notability. This is like having an article on a stillborn child --Longing.... 12:50, 31 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 per Smerdis of Tlön. El_C 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared drug in pieces[edit]

This article doesn't really make a whole lot of sense unfortunately, and seems to list things more than actually explain what it is. The source cannot be viewed without logging into that site, and it appears to be in Chinese. I believe that there is an article on the chinese Wikipedia, but am unsure. The subject also seems to be explained a bit in Chinese herbology. --HAL2008talk 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All ghits are google mirrors, nothing notable to indicate that this should be kept. Giggy _U^CP 00:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, article is far too hard to read, no idea what it's supposed to even be about. Fails WP:RS, WP:V; almost a G1 (nonsese) speedy candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. It looks to me like a very poor attempt at translating the Chinese article. Someguy1221 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per all above. Does any one notice how many other articles are requested on this page? James Luftan ^contribs 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in Chinese is identical (just a list of medicinal herbs). The author is prolific on Chinese Wikipedia but his English seems below average and I doubt any sense can ever be made out of this list. Even the title looks like a poor translation. --Targeman 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem The article nomination links to the editting of this page rather than the page itself. Nevermind --- It was fixed . James Luftan ^contribs 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't understand anything that was written, when I tried to read more I got a headache. It looks like a really bad translation, done by Google or an automated translator.-Flubeca^Talk 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, close to patent nonsense with the hardly comprehendable language, I can't tell what its about either. Homestarmy 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice to re-creation. A Google search on some of the Romanized Chinese words in this ("yinpian" for example) suggests that this is some kind of compound drug from Chinese traditional medicine. As such it may contain all of those several ingredients on the list - or at least, different versions of it may contain them. We have articles on Chinese classic herbal formulas and Chinese patent medicines that may cover the same subject. A better English name for this page needs to be found, obviously. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:52, 29 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 procedural closing to relist articles individually. ●DanMS • Talk 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of horror film killers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Like many other "List of..." articles, one that is too broad, and could be replaced with a category. Listcrufty indiscriminate collections. Similarly, I am nominating:

If it were something like Female Villains in Fiction, these would be all right: as such, they are highly speculative, too broad in scope, and (as said above) some could be replaced with cats. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: It appears that similar articles were (in the past few months) nom'd, however most were speedy-closed due to non-reasoning by the nominator.

Comment -- I was just about to say delete with a good argument against the first list. Then you added all the others and now there are too many to decide in one afd. Saikokira 01:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same in terms of why they shouldn't be on Wikipedia: what goes for one goes for them all, even though they are in varying states of completeness and quality. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close -- To quote, List of people with epilepsy is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community, etc. Including that list with others that have no similarity has undermined your whole nomination. Instead of acting on the comments of afd regulars, you're still trying to justify this afd. Saikokira 03:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and relist individually. Personally, I think that List of people on the autistic spectrum and List of people with epilepsy should stay, since a.) they're the only lists that are sourced, and b.) they don't seem to be a non-notable juncture. I think that List of female supervillains could be renamed something like Female villains in fiction if sourced. The rest should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "non-notable juncture"; how do you decide what goes in List of people with epilepsy? By its very name, it could contain almost everyone, and would become too long and manageable. On the other hand, it could be turned into a category. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep with no prejudice against individual relisting. I believe these lists are too widely varying in their merits. Someguy1221 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that these should be individually listed and judged according to their merit. For the record, I will be inclined to keep the sourced lists; that's the main (and probably only) advantage they have over categories. Cheers, Ian Rose 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist please...I think most of these should be deleted, but each should be judged individually Corpx 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist individually. The links between these articles are not close enough for one disucssion. Carom 04:06, 29 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5DX test[edit]

After reading the article I have very little idea of what the hell it's about. Most of the edits to it (see history) are linkspam...not very promising. Google News produces a grand total of 0 results; again it seems that this is not a notable product. 1 Google Scholar result, and that only mentions it in passing by the look of things. Delete. Giggy _U^CP 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag as outlined above. I couldn't find reliable sources for it. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like some kind of quality control test for computer hardware manufacturing, but is not notable. Homestarmy 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising - it refers to a proprietary bit of hardware, the Medalist 5DX Automated X-ray Inspection System, one of presumably many with this function. Gordonofcartoon 13:43, 29 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, default to keep. Despite Wikipediatrix's assertion to the contrary, sources in languages other than English are allowed under WP:V. Sandstein 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanbang gardens[edit]

One of many apartment buildings in China. 650l2520 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on G-news, G-hits are Wikipedia and mirrors, no assertion of notability at all. Giggy _U^CP 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I dont think english sites would be the best place to look for sources, but its not notable unless proven otherwise. Corpx 03:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Chinese name is 万邦花园, which gets about 1200 GHits [75]; been in the news in the past when owners there got 14 million RMB compensation in a dispute over ownership certificates in which they filed hundreds of lawsuits [76]. cab 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. cab 04:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Harlowraman 05:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a non-notable apartment. Keb25 11:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple articles about lawsuits, even one in English [77], and they were featured in Chinese and Overseas Architecture [78]. Kappa 06:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And looks like they have "Some new practices in indoor water system design for residential buildings" [79] Kappa 06:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable with plenty of sources. Just because they aren't in English isn't a reason to delete. --Beloved freak 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it is, because this is the English-speaking Wikipedia. The average English-speaking reader of Wikipedia has no way of verifying the content or the veracity of these sources for themselves. There is a Chinese Wikipedia here. wikipediatrix 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn New Thang[edit]

Restored as a contested prod, but nominated for AfD because there is no assertion of notability. A7 does not apply to magazines, however, so cannot be speedied. Also, it may be worth mentioning that this showed up at deletion review. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Due to the controversy at DRV, I strongly recommend against SNOWing this -- the drama is not worth it. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless those two issues contained some pretty blockbuster stuff that someone can source here. Montco 02:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because there didn't seem to be any actual defense in the DRV for the article's existance beyond complaints about process. Homestarmy 04:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicating notability, no claims of notability or significance even. A magazine was published, it lasted for two issues. There aren't even any sources cited to establish that those two issues were published. But assuming that they were, there is not a hint about what they contained, or why they might have been even slightly notable. Perhaps a good article could be made about this mag (who can tell? although i doubt it) but if so, this isn't it. DES ^(talk) 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PROD contest has no rationale. --WaltCip 05:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability. A google search for "Damn New Thang" brings up primarily references to the wiki article plus a few other wiki references. Found only one reference in a 2005 blog.
Delete a fanzine that lasted just two issues. Ridiculously non-notable, unencyclopedic, and unsourcable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD reason: nothing to indicate this magazine is notable (it lasted only two issues), no sources, and unverifiable. This also doesn't appear to be as controversial as the renominating admin claims it is (only one user on the DRV objected). --Core desat 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no WP:RS indicating that this magazine even so much as existed, ultimately a substub of an article that violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:43, 30 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. --Core desat 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students Association of the Faculty of Arts[edit]

Adding the following redirects to the nomination: Leuko 04:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students Association of the Faculty of arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Students association of the faculty of arts inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Students association of the faculty of arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S.A.F.A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Students' association of the faculty of arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SAFA Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable student club, does not meet WP:ORG. Leuko 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I see is tagging, had to scroll down to see the article. No assertion of notability, fails WP:ORG. Giggy _U^CP 00:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely non-notable, and fails WP:ORG. GreenJoe 01:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think student organizations should have articles about them unless they establish notability Corpx 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per corpx Harlowraman 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Student governments are not inherently notable; they need independent reliable sources like other organizations do. In the unlikely event that this gets kept, it should be moved to a title with the words "University of Ottawa" somewhere in the name. --Metropolitan90 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The main student associate at a campus is notable, just as any other major unit of a university. And of course a major college or faculty like the Faculty of Arts is notable--is the student association of this faculty notable? quite possibly , because it may represent the largest number of the students by far.DGG (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't the main student union there. They have an article as well. GreenJoe 15:13, 30 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. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side Jawn[edit]

Band seems to miss notability, and has been tagged accordingly since June, 10th. Also reads like a fan entry. Lars T. 00:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC--unsigned, only source is MySpace. Blueboy 96 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, maybe even speedy A7, not at all a notable band. Totally fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. Nonsense. The band members' names arent even complete. James Luftan ^contribs 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not notable Harlowraman 04:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. The band's first-ever live performance is referred to in future tense; that can't be a good sign. --Bongwarrior 06:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Current state of the band seems to preclude assertion of notability under Wikipedia:Notability (music). Moonriddengirl 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a promotion. Non-notable. Doesn't assert any notability. Onnaghar (Talk) 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not at all notable. Fails every single criterion in WP:MUSIC. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, Wikipedia is not Myspace Music. This article is asking for an A7, I'll tag it. TheLetterM 23:56, 29 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. Peacent 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinteely Football Club[edit]

Deleted after PROD request, but later contested by an IP user. A previous short discussion on the Football WikiProject showed the article would hardly meet the notability criterions. Have your say. Angelo 02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a football club that caters for children from age 5 to 18 with also a senior ladies team. It is a large club with 700 members running 38 teams. It runs coaching events, competitions, organises overseas tours and hosts visiting teams from abroad. This is gleaned from their website. In summary then, this appears to be a well organised, very successful, well regarded community football club for young people. In terms of meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability and thus inclusion in Wikipedia, independent sources to allow notability to be verified and significant coverage are required. I can find only one independent source about the club, an article by the FAI in the match programme for the Ireland v Sweden on 01-03-06[80] (hosted on the club website). There appears to be no other source which directly address the club nor is there significant coverage. Thus I fall on the side of delete on the basis that the club does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. --Malcolmxl5 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Apologies for the length of this but as the article was deleted and restored, I thought it best to write at length rather than say 'per nom'! --Malcolmxl5 03:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the discussion at Football WikiProject (who are people well situated to find reliable sources, if they exist), Malcomx15's research above, and my own check of Google, which shows nothing for news or books, and no web links showing multiple, independent reliable sources significantly treating the subject. I did find a corporate sponsor detailing their involvement in an annual tournament [81]. The fact that the article was deleted and restored (by me) is quite irrelevant. That was not on the merits; see my message to the requestor noting problems with the article, including the wholesale copyvio in its history.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's great these kids are getting into sports, but this article doesn't demonstrate any notability for the team. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep with major cleanup - the information on the page is well out of date. Cabinteely have joined the Leinster Senior League, which is effectively Level 3 in the Republic of Ireland in the Saturday Section Premier Division. I don't know enough as to the relative merits and strengths of the Saturday and Sunday Sections or the other division names to prove one way or the other that the division they have entered is Level 3 or not. - fchd 10:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 20+ divisions in the Leinster Senior League. The order is, I think, the 'Senior' divisions, the 'Major' divisions and then the 'Premier', etc, divisions, which are 'junior' level of football, i.e. for youth teams. I stand to be corrected of course but it seems to me that the 'Premier' is way, way down in terms of 'levels'. --Malcolmxl5 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I have no problem with a delete then. - fchd 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence to meet WP:N; plays at an insuffiently high level. TerriersFan 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. I didn't think there was a level three in Ireland.

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hannon[edit]

This doesn't cover anything more than plot synopsis that belongs at Black Christmas (2006 film). — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources giving significant coverage to this character. Corpx 03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. No independent reliable source is ever going to assert the notability of this character. I think that is pretty clear. Also, no references. tdmg 05:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 21:01, 29 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 23:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There For Tomorrow[edit]

At its current state, the article is a CSD under A7. However, the creators seem to be making a good faith effort to make the article conform to notability guidelines so I have put it on AFD instead to give them some time (a prod would obviously be contested). Maybe I should have just deleted it outright, but what's wrong with giving them 7 days? No vote.-- ugen64 03:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References contributed on the talk page fail to meet WP:MUSIC for multiple non-trivial published works. I see only one, the Alternative Press article, that passes Wikipedia:Verifiability. dissolve ^talk 05:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass any of the points under WP:MUSIC and is just in general not notable, but yeah SD under a7 too. tdmg 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 16:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 12:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Cracknell[edit]

Unreferenced biography of a recently died person, smell of hoax, no google hits Alex Bakharev 09:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Image:Cracknell.jpg. "Smell of hoax?" Absolute stench!! For a start there was no Battle of Tewkesbury involving the RAF, but why go on. Note that the editor User:Sadiemaeglutz who created this page has made edits of a dubious nature (vandalism?) to various other articles, including Banbury, Banbury Cake Newspaper, Banbury United F.C. and Banbury Cross Retail Park, all now repaired. Emeraude 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and warn author as per WP:N, zero sources, dubious author. • Maurog • 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Maurog Harlowraman 11:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, frivolous nomination, non-admin closure. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle 2[edit]

Not entirely notable, and a hoax article created by MascotGuy. Ditch this junk. Not notable either. Wvelcey 10:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Mistaken nomination? Recurring dreams 11:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems very notable & well-sourced to me. Moonriddengirl 12:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - looking at Wvelcey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), clearly bad faith or hoax nomination. Gordonofcartoon 13:50, 29 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. Sandstein 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Christian Edition[edit]

Fails to show any notability and a bit of time spent searching turns up nothing more than a few blogs and a christian software promotion site, and per some comments on the prior 'group' nomination, I am relisting this and Ichtux seperately. Localzuk^(talk) 12:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oli Filth 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Onnaghar (Talk) 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Onnaghar (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudicial Delete. It's Ubuntu, with some of the bible software. For cryin' out loud, that's what apt-get is for! This doesn't make it any different than... Ubuntu! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so prejudicial merge and redirect, but we have a couple o0f options. I'm leaning toward what is suggested on the page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, with prejudice. =^_^= Per the changes to the article, the notability requirements have, indeed, been met. We have a winner here, good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a page Religiously Orientated Distributions.

a) These (Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ichthux, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, etc) are currently niche distros. They have been reviewed in media that is orienated towards the target religious group.

b) The difference between Linux (religious flavour) and Linux (music flavour) is simply one of what the target audience is. If there is no justification for Linux (religious distribution) because of apt-get, then there is no justification for Linux (music) , Linux (security) etc, becuase apt-get will provide the same functionallity.

c) Ubuntu (or any other "mainstream" Linux distro), is for the general user. Linux (religious flavour) is targeted at non-Linux users within that niche (religious) group.

d) Ubuntu Christian Edition contains software that can not be installed by using apt-get.

e) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pseudo_daoist/Religious_Distros is a draft of what Religiously Orientated Distributions could cover.jonathon 21:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that page, as I see it, is that no notability is shown except a single niche (as in specific to only the religion) publication covering a single derivative distro. This isn't 'random pet project linux distro-pedia', we have to maintain notability.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on that page. I didn't expect the AfD for these to come up before the discussion about whether to merge them into Ubuntu (linux Distribution) had taken place. jonathon

Note from Ubuntu CE Developer: To say that Ubuntu CE has no notability is absurd. A search for "Ubuntu Christian Edition" in Google yields from 750,000 to 1,000,000 results. Ubuntu CE is currently #27 in the Distrowatch popularity ranking. Linux Format magazine has mentioned Ubuntu CE twice. The U.S. Catholic magazine has featured Ubuntu CE in their "Catholic Tastes" section. The Perspective, an Australian parenting magazine has featured a full article on Ubuntu CE. Ubuntu CE is even listed as a derivative on the official Ubuntu site. I am not sure how notable it needs to be but this appears to be more of an attack on the religious aspect of Ubuntu CE.--Mhancoc7 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, as a Christian, I must admit to taking umbrage at the remark that this is an attack on the religious aspects. Second, you might check WP:GOOGLE for a good reason as to why we don't really consider Google page counts to be reliable - though I did get "about 807,000" when doing the search, for what it's worth. =^_^= See, my thing is this - I run Debian Etch, and I can pretty much get the same effect by 'apt-get install'ing all the packages that come up with the result of 'apt-cache search bible'. Given present circumstances, I'm likely to bend to keep considering the coverage that was pointed out, but given that, QED, anybody can just do this, what makes your distro so special? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, what makes it different is the fact that it comes with software that is difficult for Linux newbies to install. It is also preconfigured for use by a specific group. The fact is Ubuntu CE exists. It has been reviewed online and in magazines. It will continue to grow whether it is allowed to keep its entry here. I think it would be sad if it is removed. It would be a sign of Wikipedia's slant on what should and should not be included. I mean don't you think that maybe you all have forgotten that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Just because there are other ways to create Ubuntu CE does not make Ubuntu CE cease to exist. I am not going to post anymore. I just hope that common sense will prevail. --Mhancoc7 09:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail notability/verifiability guidelines and is reasonably well-written. Brisvegas 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this doesn't fail notability requirements, please can details of its notability be put in the article?? It's all well and good listing random things here, but unless it is made clear in the article I can see it coming up again and again... Localzuk^(talk) 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) For those who claim that using apt-get duplicates Ubuntu Christian Edition, explain how to install the following programs that are part of Ubuntu Christian Edition by using apt-get:

The Word;
Virtual Rosary;
e-Sword;

b) Ubuntu Christian Edition preconfigures DansGuardian. It was the first Ubuntu distro to include a preconfigured version.

c) I'll also point out that four other religiously orientated distros were started as a reaction to Ubuntu Christian Edtion. [And that is one of the better reasons to have page Religiously Orientated Distributions', if this & Ichthux are deleted.]jonathon 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Rosary is a freely downloadable program that works via Wine. e-Sword the same, after a bit of playing and configuring. By 'The Word' do you mean access to this service?-Localzuk^(talk) 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected then, but this is not something that can't be taken care of with a few minor installations. A bash script involving wget(1) comes to mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Word is yet another gratis Bible Study program for Windows. for somebody exprienced in writing, and running shell scripts, installing e-Sword, Virtual Rosary etc might be easy. For somebody who is just being introduced to Linux, forget it. The Linux alternatives for these programs are quite simply not anywhere close to providing the same functionality.[Anyway, my vote is to merge into Religiously Orientated Distributions for the time being.]jonathon 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think then that one could create the shell script and have it run as part of an apt meta-package - installs the requesite software and makes the adjustments to wine as well. Makes it easy to thusly set up any Debian flavored distro - including Debian itself - to run the software. It can be done, I just don't know how. =^_^= At any rate, this is not the place to discuss dev tactics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense please: Ubuntu Christian Edition is a cd image that actually exists, can actually be downloaded and actually used to install Linux on a computer with a specific set of features that are of interest to a particular group of users. It exists, people use it. Therefore there are people that are interested in it and may want information on it. Therefore Wikipedia can have a page to provide this information. I vote to keep it.

I see no reason to object to this edition of Linux having an entry unless someone had an objection to Christianity, and in that case they can read other articles. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about Christianity, Islam, Witchcraft and all sorts of things that may be of interest to some and could grossly offend others. It is the readers choice what they read, Wikipedia is here to provide unbiased information, and in general it is extremely good at this, as readers of opposing views make sure both sides of any debate get heard. Censoring out information because someone doesn't like it is completely counter to this purpose.

Although Ubuntu CE may be able to be created by the user from Ubuntu through the shell and by downloading specific packages, a new user could not do this. I could not do this with confidence. How can anyone object to a cd being created that has all of this already done, so the novice can simply install the software and have it just work? Next we will have people objecting to Kubuntu or Xubuntu because they are both available via apt-get after installing Ubuntu. People could even object to downloadable .pdf documents as they could alternatively be downloaded in .txt format and turned it into a .pdf on the users computer using LaTeX. This argument rapidly becomes ridiculous the more you look at it. Some people are interested in Ubuntu CE. If any other reader is not, they do not need to read about it.User:Sjdennis2 11:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Dennis, the problem with this is that mere existence is not a criteria to inclusion. I feel it prudent to note also that we are not censored, either. That said, might I direct your attention to WP:WAX? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added more External Links: I have added several links to reviews and sites that mention Ubuntu CE. Some of the links are to entries on the Official Ubuntu CE site because the article is only available in hard copy. In these cases the reference info is included. --Mhancoc7 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Christ saves souls, but you, my friend, have saved the article! =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good one! I hope that does help keep the entry. I know it needs some work. I am going to contact the Ubuntu CE Team member in charge of keeping it updated and let them know. Thanks, --Mhancoc7 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that if they do, that would probably be a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest guideline. Oli Filth 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So,I can't have someone "in charge" of ensuring that the latest release info makes it into the entry? What about this, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules ?--Mhancoc7 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, I think updating the release information is not a problem. But that's just me. Read up on WP:COI for details. General rule is that it's not wise to write about articles about yourself, but making changes for accuracy, while sometimes frowned upon, is generally not much of a problem. BTW: Oli, please chill, 'k? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If I came across as un-chilled at some point, I apologise. All I intended was to point out a potential guideline violation. Oli Filth 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we must, merge per jonathon. It has its own, separate CD installation, and it seems to have a substantial following. Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Recruiter (play)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Recruiter (play)

Keep - There is a review online (type "The Recruiter Play" into google and the user's personal judgement that the play made no impact is unfounded. The fact is, the play is an event. It is an original piece of work and should be acknowledged. The play was mentioned positively by Brenda Blethyn in June 1st edition of the Evening Standard Magazine (London 2007)
Strong Delete - This is a minor student production which was only peformed on 3 days. I have googled various incarnations of the phrase "the recruiter play" and cannot find one review at all. Please post the link to substantiate your claims. Wikipedia should not be used as a database of every minor play with a limited run at a university. G82490 15:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Onnaghar (Talk) 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - A short run play with no source proof of its merit does not deserve an article otherwise every school play should be on here. Kg546r 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was early delete as obvious original research. El_C 20:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social neuroprosthetics[edit]

Delete - Original research essay. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's some essay about...well, I don't know what it is about, becausse it rambles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Also delete addition to Neuroprosthetics by the same editor. Clarityfiend 17:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Chicaneo 19:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essay for sure. Onnaghar (Talk) 20:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rambling essay about, well, something. Obvious OR. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 22:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:48, 29 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 obvious foolishness, based on Wikipedia:Common sense, Wikipedia:Be bold, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. ●DanMS • Talk 22:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ondai Tower[edit]

An obvious hoax. Please note: WP:CSD does not allow for Speedy deletion of hoax pages. Delete. Owen× ☎ 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, obvious hoaxes can be deleted under G3, "pure vandalism." Specifically, "silly vandalism": creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages. Accordingly, speedy delete, G3. Blueboy 96 21:16, 29 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.

[1]