Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

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 speedy redirect to former location. Sala Skan 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studylink[edit]

Notability not established; written in a less than encyclopedic fashion (advertising language style, that is; creator evidently associated with site and has made no edits besides creating this article.) Note: The page should redirect to the location it did formerly, i.e. New Zealand Ministry of Social Development. Even if the page is kept is should probably redirect there anyway with this page being moved to Studylink (website) or something like that. Richard001 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 - pure advertising. Sala Skan 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete' nn. `'Miikka 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and redirect to its former location. Richard001 00:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete since it's already on wiktionary. Daniel Case 03:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berk[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is nothing but a dictionary entry without citation. Contested prod. If this is to pass AfD, it needs to pass WP:NEO or demonstrate that the word has a historical background. Citations are needed to verify the meaning of the word. The article would need encyclopedic content beyond a simple definition. Until(1 == 2) 23:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are no other AfD's for this one, so I nuked the list. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if a source is found. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to an older version which included sources for the meaning and clearly demonstrating that it isn't a neologism. I'm unsure as to whether it should be deleted or not. It's not much more than a definition, though perhaps the etymology is interesting enough to merit an article. I'd be tempted to merge/redirect to cunt, although this might unnecessarily shock the unaware. --Cherry blossom tree 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The online reference does not support the text of the article beyond the mere definition, does anyone have access to the other source? Until(1 == 2) 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source is online. I'm not sure what you mean. --Cherry blossom tree 00:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to dig: [1] Until(1 == 2) 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That link states "1930s: from Cockney rhyming slang Berkeley Hunt, for cunt" and the article agrees with all of this. --Cherry blossom tree 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all it says, the rest of the article is original research(unless that offline source supports it, that is why I asked if anyone had access to it). Until(1 == 2) 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean the source does not support all of the article but contradicts none of it. That is a big difference. Also there is a big difference between information that is not presently cited and original research. Original research is purely attempting to advance novel theories either with or without citations. --Cherry blossom tree 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified my wording. And information presented without verification needs to be assumed to be OR until shown otherwise(where did it come from? Some guy?). But as I said, the offline source may hold this info, which is why I asked if anyone had access to it. Until(1 == 2) 12:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki (to Wiktionary), Regardless of whether sources are there or not it fails WP:NOT#DICT Naufana : talk 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as a dictionary entry -- Whpq 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary Giggy _U^CP 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a note to all those !voting transwiki: wiktionary already has an entry for Berk, and none of this information from this article is substantiated with any sourcing. -- Whpq 12:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Prabhu S[edit]

Synthesis and original research. The original editor has posited that because two individual names which combine into this name are notable, that the combination is in itself notable. However, no examples of a Senthil Prabhu that meet notability standards are provided. Because the article is about the name and not a specific person, it fails the speedy deletion criterion for non-notable individuals. Deletion was proposed and objected to by the OE, so I'm taking it to an AfD discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article would be about a person named Sentil Prabhu, but no such notable person is named in the article. ●DanMS • Talk 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable unless there are secondary sources about the name "Senthil Prabhu S" as opposed to persons with that name. Abecedare 00:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. why would someone create an article like this? what possible encyclopedic use could it fulfill? Naufana : talk 00:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by a new User:Ssenthilprabhu, based on his own name, I guess. I read it to be a good faith effort by a user unfamiliar with wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and we should be careful that we don't bite. Abecedare 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - very true, my sincere apologies if I offended the author. Naufana : talk 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per C.Fred and DanMS. — ERcheck (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Comment: an article on the surname Prabhu may be notable. Bearian 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Screaming (music)[edit]

Screaming isn't a type of music; and it would be hard to define. Also the list section where it is asked to "keep this article alive" really doesn't seem to make this notable. -WarthogDemon 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I hope I am not mistaken but perhaps this article should be merged with Overtone singing. Naufana : talk 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's now well sourced and looks to be on its way. Naufana : talk 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant bits to Screamo. They cover the same basic topic, and the latter article could benefit from the sources in this one. -- Kesh 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per citations and edits made by Chubbles. Nice work! -- Kesh 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup This is very important to people who spend a lot of time discussing the aesthetics of metal. Plenty of secondary source information out there on it. Needs some love from an experienced editor from Wikiproject Heavy Metal. This cannot be merged into Screamo, because it deals with screaming in many metal subgenres beyond screamo. Chubbles 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Screamo is a genre, not a style of singing. Screaming vocals predates the Screamo genre by a long way. Also, this article is well referenced. J Milburn 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge somewhere or delete~~ Screaming is not in itself a notable and documented musical phenomenon. GassyGuy 19:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I completely disagree. Screaming is an incredibly important part of the aesthetics of many subgenres of modern rock music. Chubbles 19:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question But are there reliable sources that also disagree? While the ones in the article mention screaming, none of them are specifically about screaming. There is one that comes close but for this to be documented in an encyclopaedia, somebody else would have to decide it's incredibly important and worthy of documentation. GassyGuy 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I just noticed the one I credited with coming close is actually from WikiHow - scratch reliable from that. GassyGuy 19:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ask and Ye Shall Receive! Five published books on heavy metal now cited, and some expansion done. I needed to go to the library anyway. Does it need more? Chubbles 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to neutral I'm still not convinced it itself has been the primary topic of something, but it is now well-sourced and this leads me to believe it could be. Not sure it passes but equally unsure it doesn't, so best to err on the side of caution. GassyGuy 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I expect it to be worked on. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 16:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to True Q. Information cannot be merged due to copyvio. — Deckill er 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rogers (Star Trek)[edit]

Character appears in a single episode and has no real-world notability beyond those ~45 minutes. Article, which is just plot summary, cites no references beyond the episode itself. I earlier redirected it to that episode ("True Q") but another editor reverted, asserting that AfD would be more appropriate because a redirect essentially deletes all the article's content. --EEMeltonIV 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the events to True Q and merge immediate bio to a section in Q (Star Trek). -WarthogDemon 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in the interests of full disclosure I'm a confirmed Trekkie, but this character simply doesn't deserve her own article. Merge & Redirect per WarthogDemon. Naufana : talk 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WarthogDemon. Character has no independent notability. -Chunky Rice 00:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This page appears to be a copyvio from [2] and there is no non-copyvio version in its history. I'll take care of the copyvio. "paperwork"; whether it gets axed through AfD or that listing, we will see. --EEMeltonIV 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Warthog. Note: Memory Alpha is a wiki with rights under creative commons, so a copyvio tag may not be relevant in this case. Ohconfucius 08:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Ohconfucius 08:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific CC license used by MA is not compatible with the GFDL. MrZaius^talk 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect copyvio doesn't warrant retention, and, after having been blanked by EEMeltonIV, doesn't warrant rewrite. Redirect or delete. MrZaius^talk 04:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nevermind. I redirected it to the district Rockwood School District, which you guys would've said to do anyway. Wizardman 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballwin Elementary School[edit]

Yet another "i exist" school article. Fails WP:N, WP:V, etc. Wizardman 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Lane[edit]

No evidence of notability in the article per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO in spades. Also Lane's picture appears to already be in question. Naufana : talk 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not finding anything notable other than the Allyson Hannigan mixup which if anything should be covered in Hannigan's article. No awards , reviews or interviews found elsewhere. Horrorshowj 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't currently pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyright violation (criterion G12) with no non-infringing revision available to revert to. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Pop-Rock[edit]

Contested prod. Appears to be mostly original research. Allmusic lists "Adult Alternative Pop-Rock" as a genre, so there is potential for a vaild article, but this ain't it. --Finngall ^talk 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete this.... the bibliographycal info are from allmusic.com And a book of the actual music alternative rock... but in spanish! is a good article!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabo 084 (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep, this article needs some work it reads like a music review not an encyclopedia. But the article is the ripe old age of being one day old, let's see if other editors can salvage it before it's deleted. Naufana : talk 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user continually reposts copyvio version of article. -N 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). Non-admin close. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syllable stress of classical botanical names[edit]

Falls into WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. Not wikified. No references. No context. Even if the article was about syllable stress of classical botanical names and not a list, I am not sure it would be notable (but I wouldn't know, because there are no references). tdmg 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Retracted Is no longer a list, is wikified, referenced, has context, and notability. Good job you guys. tdmg 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Nothing but unreferenced information with zero context. Someguy1221 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. This is why I always recommend building articles in a sandbox. Over 99% of articles that look like deletable material upon their initial creation never get improved. Someguy1221 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry. The page already had a (red)link on our discussion page, I was lazy, I clicked it and started it.

Three minutes after the article was created! Are you Speedy Gonzales's nerd cousin? ;-) We are discussing the creation of this article in Project Plants. The main source is a German book, Flora von Deutschland. The main part of the article will be a list also when finished, we'll move it if we find a better title. Just be patient, it will be OK in a matter of days, I've only forgotten undercontruction tag. Aelwyn 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have given it more time if I thought that it could become an article that is appropriate for Wikipedia. However, it does not look like any amount on content and explanation will make this anything more than a list and it will never escape WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. I am not AfDing it because I think that the information is useless and can't be made useful, I am AfDing it because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. tdmg 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm > You're right. I now realise how you WP is actually made only of top-quality encyclopaedic articles, like List of postal codes, List of Prison Break characters or Sadism and masochism in fiction. But no, mine (ours) is about science, delete it before it can do any harm like being useful to students or occupying space on the servers (which is needed to host Old English Wikipedias, Many useful photos and cover thousands of important topics like Teledildonics). </sarcasm> Aelwyn 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Bottom of the page. Aelwyn 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC) And the content of the page is some precious information, usually very difficult to get. Each of the Latin names you see has a fixed stress, which is often unknown to students and can sometimes be a problem also for expert botanists. A list of names with the accent mark is then valuable.[reply]

Delete, sorry but I really don't feel a list like this belongs on Wikipedia, could it be transwikied to Wiktionary? Would it even belong there? (I don't know because I don't really use that project too much). Naufana : talk 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aelwyn, I have to go with everyone else on this, this does not require a list, but a paragraph of rules, with a couple of good references, including the one you mentioned plus Stearn and a couple of others he mentions. The list is useless if you have to check every word for its accent, and that's not how it's done. Stearn is the best modern primary source on syllable stresses in Botanical Latin. KP Botany 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject is noteworthy, there are multiple distinct sources on Botanical Latin pronunciation, including texts (Stearn's and Allen's, recommended for botanists, although designed for Classical, the German work Aelwyn cites, and the Royal Horticultural Society's "Pronunciation of botanical names," by Stearn, this being the most often cites work, so well worth mentioning outside of the large tome on Botanical Latin, and the world famous 1951 book on pronouncing botanical and zoological Latin by the Swede Erik Wiken, Latin för Botanister och Zoologer).
- Comment again, this is not about the notability or it's importance, it's about it being a list/directory, which is what Wikipedia is not. Please address the reasons provided for deletion. tdmg 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That matter has been dealt with, it is no longer a list. Please address the article that exists. KP Botany 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are now references, but lack of references is not a deletion criteria, notability is. A simply search on the pronunciation of Botanical Latin might have led to this conclusion. There is absolutely no reason to delete this article, it's intention as titled. A list? That should be a different article, but let's go with what we have now and settle this article is notable, does not need deleted, does not require any more discussion about deletion. It's a weighty topic. KP Botany 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems encyclopedic to me, a little more weighty than you say to-mah-to, I say to-may-to... Carlossuarez46 00:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a notable subject, it's sourced, and it's still under construction. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete given that there is no sourced information to merge. --Core desat 05:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RGS School House[edit]

Nom - entirely unsourced article. Any sourced information could easily be merged with the school's article (this one is about just one building). Rklawton 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, Needs to be edited alot and merged with the school article.. It maybe be a significant building but nothing in the article leads the reader to that conclusion. Callelinea 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Callelinea. Naufana : talk 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of guff about unremarkable teachers and an unremarkable band. Anjouli 15:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn `'Miikka 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Ripon Grammar School per Callelinea et al. Bearian 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Document[edit]

There are no reliable sources that claim The Document is an official Linkin Park album. Other sources state it is an unofficial bootleg. [4], and thus does not belong on Wikipedia --►ShadowJester07 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Billboard lists "MVD Audio" as the record label not Warner Bros, combined with the LP association forums post it really looks like a bootleg. If it is indeed a legitimate release the article can be rewritten. Naufana : talk 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we not list notable bootlegs? Notability doesn't preclude bootlegs if they're of note, be it for notoriety or otherwise (I've read notability several times and don't recall seeing anything to that effect, but would gladly consider it if you show me the page). These bootlegs known as The Document aren't something I've heard of, but if they're getting the attention of Billboard, it's possible that they are in fact notable. I'm not voting to keep or delete, just pointing out that even if it's not official, it still can be deserving a page.--linca ^linca 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment,First of all if it is a bootleg then it's a bootleg purporting to be an official release, which would only cause confusion. secondly if it is a bootleg then wouldn't the notability still fail per WP:CRYSTAL? It hasn't even been released yet. Naufana : talk 01:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about it being subject to Crystal Ball, but I thought I might just pose the question. All I'm saying is that when the "document" (crap name) is released, it may pass WP:NOTEand may be suitable to keep. However, Crystal Ball is talking about items atht are completely speculative, however the album seems to be actually get compiled, so there could be some weight behind it. I'm not necessarily for keeping the article, but I'm for giving it a few weeks to see if it gets its feet. If it's still a rickety page, then I'm for its removal. --linca ^linca 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't seem to be any reliable sources at all about this record. All we have is a few links to pages on reliable sites that have zero information about it. Perhaps when it's actually released, we'll see some discussion in reliable sources, but until then we shouldn't have an article about it. JulesH 14:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Warner Bros Records did not make a statement of this greatest hist album, and neither did Linkin Park. No official sources...
Delete. verifiability problme. `'Miikka 21:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see universal agreement that the page needs work. If this is the case, then please rewrite it. The only other !vote for delete was just as bad as several of the keep votes, some jibberish about the enlightenment of truth, with WP:ILIKEIT written all over them. Please do keep this article neutral. Note this is a nonadmin close. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2nd nomination)[edit]

This is more of a relisting than a new nomination. This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2007 but almost all of the comments left were left by single purpose accounts or were unsigned, including 4 IPs. Some comments are so mixed up (due to liberal use of line breaks, few indents, and missing signatures) that I can hardly tell who said what. As such, I am renominating it. (The article also never had an AfD tag on it.) The main reasons for deletion (that were actually based on policies) were that it is too POV and does not have enough sources to back up some claims. The reasons for keeping were that the article is not that bad and only needs some cleanup. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if this group has been the subject of such things as French government studies, I think it passes the notability criteria. However, the article is bad enough that it needs a complete rewrite. Nyttend 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs editing. Callelinea 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up Looks quite notable to me and it very well referenced, even though they are direct links and not put accordingly in a ref/note section.--JForget 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was really on the fence on this one but, to me, it fails WP:PAPER. Specifically "readability considerations for everybody," this article is incredibly stilted and, I think, would only benefit from a reboot from a clean slate. Naufana : talk 23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reasons given for deletion. Neither POV, nor needs cleanup nor not enough sources are valid arguments for deletion. There are tags for all of these. IPSOS (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is useless in every way imaginable. It is so POV'd that nothing short of a complete rewrite is going to save it. All in all, this article is an example of the absolute worst that Wikipedia has to offer...HOWEVER, an article being bad isn't a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. I see no reason to do anything except keep and improve it. Trusilver 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP With the offer of Truesilver to make available his (and his team's) "editing" skills, and all the "admins" available, this should become the most NPOV article yet on the site of the Great WIKI...lol. Now is time to bring your TRUTH forward and become a "believer".

I am a firm beleiver in the WIKI process and am curious to see what is not considered NPOV in the majority of the article. (I already know of some). There is already some editing taking place. I will be watching the process from the side-lines and applauding every "great play"... see you all after my surgery. All STAND for the WIKI Anthem!! lol ;-)) 4d-don--don 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first AFD was the best Meat-Puppet joke I have seen in 2 years. As for the article, it is getting better and better and there is not a single compelling reason to delete it. Sethie 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My fellow brothers (those who want to bring the truth out), TRUTH of a spiritual practice can only be found out by practicing it. Can you tell the taste of a mango simply by looking at it or seeing someone eating it? Secondly I would like to bring the attention to the PURPOSE of Wikipedia, is it to establish the truth or to make the information available which is most widely accepted as truth. Now obviously we can see that content of this article is heavily skewed and disputed, now how do you prove who is right here? Well, my question is why should Wikipedia go into resolving some people's conflict. It would be in its best interest to stay away from it. If at all this page is to be kept, it should give no more than references to the existing official websites of this organization and nothing at all. Having links to blogs showing them as references? Common Wikipedia has better standard than that, I truly believe in this. My sincere hopes, that admins will take necessary actions. - Duty2love 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am not your sister (or brother)(PR)! (I have my own family, given to me by the ONE). This article can be saved by any and/or all "of good faith". Those who would rather "HIDE" in their shame at the TEACHINGS of their MASTER and his METHODs, can do so. We who do not "adhere" to any "ISM", want a "referenced" article, not PR, which is what the article was before it became POV on the other side. NOW all WIKIans can BALANCE IT (and MAKE IT NPOV) and we will have "SERVED HUMANITY", and WIKI and its WIKI(ans) including US ALL!! '-)) jeanne--J.d'arc 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable, referenced and the delete votes do not sway me and are poor. Englishrose 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was weak keep. In a week on AfD no one has provided any better sources for the article, despite a good consensus from some knowledgeable voters that this synagogue is notable. The AfD tag will come off, but it will be replaced with {{unreferenced}}. If no one is interested in providing them after, say, a couple of months, this nomination should be reconsidered. Daniel Case 03:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Tiferes Yisroel[edit]

Article does not assert the notability of Congregation Tiferes Yisroel. No third-party sources, such as news articles, are given. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Plenty of info on line about this congregation. Just needs to placed. Callelinea 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Callelinea. Article needs a more neutral tone.Naufana : talk 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This is a very special and very well-known Congregation in one of the biggest Orthodox Jewish Communities in the world--Baltimore. It is known world-wide by many, if not most Orthodox Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.46.180 (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2007
Keep A notable congregation, but the article needs to have sources added and a clear claim of notability added. Alansohn 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gsearch reveals <1000 hits, most of which are just directory listings. Otherwise, it's just brief notes, e.g., "X attends TY in Baltimore". However, I'm open if people can provide better sources. The Evil Spartan 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite with sources etc. Notable, just needs proof. Giggy _U^CP 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Gamer Symphony Orchestra[edit]

Non-notable band that plays video game music. Should have been speedied, but my speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School musical groups other than the marching band may not be notable unless they've done something extraoridinary Corpx 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with the nom, should have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge~~ , If the someone can find additional sources and if it is edited down it is a fine article to have. It is notable as it a rarity of what they are doing, but if no other sources are found then delete it. Callelinea 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the University of Maryland.--JForget 22:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear that this is a school-supported band, just a bunch of people who got together. Corvus cornix 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, memberships and officer lists are unnecessary. Naufana : talk 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, normally if the name of the orchestra includes the university name I would presume they either are school sponsered or school approved or they would have a law suit on their hands.. Additionally, they web site states that it is a not for profit organization and its on the University of Maryland web. Callelinea 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see that it's on the UMD web? Corvus cornix 01:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://stars.umd.edu/view_groups.asp perhaps if you looked you could of found it, but because it was me you just decided to comment about it. Callelinea 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean that page which says at the very top, The links from this page are developed and maintained by student organizations. These pages do not in any way constitute official University content? No, I have no idea how you found that page, I was looking at the band's official website. Corvus cornix 04:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you will please go to the University web site: http://www.umd.edu/university/; then click Campus Life ; then click Student Organizations ; the click Student Clubs and Organizations -Full list of student groups. That will lead you to http://stars.umd.edu/view_groups.asp , now maybe you see how it is done? Callelinea 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most Student organizations are not school sponsored. Here at Univ of Texas, all you need to create an official student organization are 3 signatures of current students and $20. From the website of this group, it reads " In the Fall of 2005, a group of students in the University of Maryland Repertoire Orchestra (UMRO) realized that they shared a common interest: the music featured in video games. They then created the Gamer Symphony Orchestra, an orchestra entirely devoted to the performance of great video game music." Corpx 08:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where as you are technically correct. The University can withhold the approval of any of these student organizations, since the University did not withold its approval and allows the group to use the University name and has it linked on its web site, one is to presume the University has given its approval of this organiszation. But to get back to the subject matter here before us.. If it is not kept then it should be merged into the University article.Callelinea 15:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it should be merged either. A university page should not mention every student organization there. This is no different than "UMD Gaming Club" or "UMD Chinese Students Assosiation" Corpx 17:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep though initially skeptical, I think they may be unique, and it should be kept if sourced adequately.DGG (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly, this group's repertoire is unique or at least unusual. However, I don't see how they meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG. Substantially all of their performances seem to have taken place on the campus of their own university, and the sources for the article consist of an article in the campus newspaper, the orchestra's official web site, their entry on the university's list of student organizations, and a YouTube link to some of their performances -- none of which are independent sources. On the other hand, due to the orchestra's unusual focus, they might be more likely than the typical student orchestra to be discussed in national media sources. If such sources are found, I might change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Diamondback newspaper, while directed at the campus community, is actually independent from the university. (It is affiliated with an independent media group, College Publisher, as stated by the privacy policy on the website: http://www.diamondbackonline.com/user/privacypolicy/) The article was not commissioned by the GSO in any way. No members of the orchestra took part in its creation. --Sageinblue 00:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Maryland. This orchestra may be notable, its hard to tell, so just in case, keep the article history available. --SmokeyJoe 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-band Giggy _U^CP 22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Feels like it ought to be notable, needs assertion of such and sources. SamBC 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Marriott Marquis[edit]

A big concrete slab of a hotel, with one weak assertion of notability (a big atrium). Clarityfiend 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an inadequate article, but I think all major city hotels as are other public-use structures of that degree of importance are likely to be notable. Being a big ugly slab is no reason fore deletion from wikipedia, whatever it may have done to the cityscape. In fact, if there have been public complaints....DGG (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty famous hotel, though it does need better sources. A search at Google News for "Marriott Marquis" "New York" comes up with 113 hits, and most of the first two pages have to do with several different industries presenting their annual awards there. Corvus cornix 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the more famous hotels in one of the world's major cities. Easily notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a close call in my viewchanged see below; being a venue for events is not distinguishing for a big-city hotel; I'm sure most of them have their share of awards, conferences, holiday parties, weddings, live music, etc. Unless something more substantial can be found, like WP:RSes that discuss the place rather than what other people no doubt pay the place to have happen there, it seems not notable. I've looked through the first several pages of ghits for "New York Marriott Marquis" and it seems all travel sales/offers or event notices with the exception of the architect's page. For such a big building, one would have expected some mention by reliable sources, to establish its notability, but I couldn't find any. Carlossuarez46 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the sources found by Zagalejo below. Carlossuarez46 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A New York Times archive search will provide enough articles about the actual construction of the hotel. Here are a few I found:

Damon Stetson. "Putting Together a 50-Story Extravaganza." Jan 8., 1984. Page R1.

Paul Goldberger. "Marriott Marquis Hotel: An Edsel in Times Square?" Aug. 31, 1985. Page 25.

Ethan Schwartz. "Marriott Marquis Opens Its Doors" Sept. 4, 1985. Page B1.

I'm sure there are other sources available, as well. (Eg, architecture publications, which probably aren't viewable online.)Zagalejo 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable hotel for its size and location.. I would like to see more sources. I am sure that when it was first announced that it was going to be built there were plenty of articles about it. Callelinea 22:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability.--JForget 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per above. Naufana : talk 23:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Very notable location, size and hotel company. NYT refs alone above to boot. The nom's "A big concrete slab of a hotel" is a very obvious example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Oakshade 14:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable building by a notable architect, who invented, or at least popularized the atrium style hotel. Portman had been trying for years to build one in New York after building similar (but better) hotels around the country, many of which became iconic structures. Portman and his particular style are underappreciated these days, and vulnerable to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One problem with New York is that a building that would be a landmark in any other city is just another 50-story building in New York. The nominator may not like the building - I don't either - but it is certainly notable. I'll look through my library/big stack of books for refs - they all seem to be on the bottom of the pile. Acroterion _(talk) 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on some notability guidelines for architecture with WikiProject Architecture people that may help in the future. It's got some distance to go: I'm not ready to put it up for comment yet. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does everybody assume I nominated this article because of dislike? Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. As I noted originally, it made very little claim to notability, especially for someone unfamiliar with New York. Clarityfiend 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I don't like it - I don't know anybody who really does. I'll take a shot at editing and sourcing once I've found the box my sources are in. Acroterion _(talk) 16:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hotel is clearly notable. Article fails basic Wikipedia standards, including a complete lack of sources, which must be added. Alansohn 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite the topic is notable and worthy enough to be included in this article, but I think it needs a rewrite or at least something short of it. Some things, such as the renovation (which seemed complete when I stayed at the hotel two years ago) and the statement where few rooms have views of Times Square because it had a bad reputation at the time of construction-- seem innacurate and should be ommitted.
Strong Keep, as it has unique architecture, was vitally important historically as part of the Times Square gentrification, and site of many notable conventions, including the New York State Bar Association. I wish I could afford to stay there! It's one of the best pieces of modern architecture, a really fine addition to the New York City skyline. Bearian 20:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With large corporations holding conferences there, there is likely to be at least one news article saying how it's taken place. With a unique architecture, it'd be mentioned in some journal. So, there must be some notability.--Kylohk 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was other delete. --Core desat 05:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Hip hop rivalry[edit]

Un-encyclopedic, non-notable, trivial content. Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Delete as per the G-Unit feuds article. Lugnuts 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, no references, and quite a number that don't really fit into the "category" (if you want to call it that) that are just one artist dissing another.--Ispy1981 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and G-Unit feuds AfD. --- Realest4Life 23:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, a really funny article to read, (blank) made a quick diss towards (blank), etc. but it fails WP:NOT#DIR. (I didn't think anyone actually said "diss" anymore) Naufana : talk 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We (hip-hop fans... and artists) still say "diss" :D. --- Realest4Life 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BLP concerns. Otto4711 04:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete- Although I didnt want the G-Unit Feuds article to be deleted, this should be deleted for the same reasons. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete- Articles like this give wikipedia a bad name.Cosprings 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable info should be kept in the relevant artist biographies. This page shows no signs whatsoever of being improved in the slightest if this was kept. Spellcast 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - it annoys me every good article gets removed. Please keep it.
- Comment - That is not a very good reason to keep. --- Realest4Life 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:BLP Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hop rivalry[edit]

Un-encyclopedic, non-notable, trivial content. Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Delete as per the G-Unit feuds article. Lugnuts 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete - Per nom and G-Unit feuds AfD. --- Realest4Life 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and Keep Although the bulk of the article is essentially a list with unnecessary detail, the topic itself isnotable. What we need to do is hang on to it, get rid of all the pointless information, and expand it with information of an encyclopedic nature. Calgary 23:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete, per Realest4Life & Other Hip hop rivalry AfD Naufana : talk 01:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge - all of the individual rivalries need to be deleted per notability and BLP concerns but the topic of rivalries is notable. Otto4711 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we were to remove all the individual rivalries, the article would be a stub. Maybe we should just give the topic a mention in the Hip hop or Hip hop music articles, if there isn't already one. --- Realest4Life 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with stubs. Otto4711 15:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. --- Realest4Life 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete- Although I didnt want the G-Unit Feuds article to be deleted, this should be deleted for the same reasons. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N Delete-All these beefs are explained on the respective artists articlesCosprings 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information is much better kept in the relevant biography pages. Spellcast 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I was just reading an article at Slate that used the phrase "dis track", something I had never heard of. I immediately went to Wikipedia, and that entry redirected to this article, which has proven useful to me. TJIC
KEEP - there's no reason to delete... if there's please tell me? West Coast Ryda 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reason is stated at the top. --- Realest4Life 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop rivalries[edit]

Un-encyclopedic, non-notable, trivial content. Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Delete as per the G-Unit feuds article. Lugnuts 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first I'm tempted to keep this and the other two below, and then I read the article. Poor unencyclopedaic writing, list that isn't really a list, too broad to be about a specific rivalry, too in-depth to be an overview, either vastly chop to make it into a list, or delete, merging any valuable content into specific artist's articles, if necessary. --ST47Talk 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic, redundant (a couple of the entries on this list can be found in the other "Hip Hop Rivalries" articles up for deletion, and as per my previous comment, some of these don't seem to even fit the term "rivalry".--Ispy1981 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and G-Unit feuds AfD. --- Realest4Life 23:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not a fan of rap, but I am aware that the "rivalries" are an important aspect of that genre of music, which has a lot of one-upmanship, battling it out, etc. My knowledge is strictly OR of course, having watched the last few scenes of 8 Mile. I'm not sure how often rap fans visit the Wonder Bread world of AfD, but as long as I don't have to hear it booming from a car stereo, I can live with it in Wikipedia. Mandsford 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in hip hop the rivalries and such are in a sense significant. Still, the significance of the subject of the list does not mean that the list itself is significant or necessary. I support the inclusion of a Hip hop rivalry article on wikipedia, but I don't think that we need a whole list of specific rivalries. Let anything notable be included in the articles of the respective artists. by the way, my vote is Delete. Calgary 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per notability and BLP concerns and the lyrics are probably copyvios. Otto4711 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, creators, I like rap music, but I don't even know half of the rappers in that article. If some beef has an impact on the hip hop scene and can be sourced properly, create an article for it or note it on the rappers page, and let this list go. #29^(talk) 07:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete- Although I didnt want the G-Unit Feuds article to be deleted, this should be deleted for the same reasons. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because of the widespread news coverage of several of the major feuds, including those that resulted in the deaths of some rappers (Biggie Smalls, Tupac, etc.). Definitely notable and definitely concerns well-known, national media-attention rappers. Also, this list is hardly indescriminate or loosely connected, rather, it actually contains text as well that puts the subjects in their context, plus it can be easily sourced. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the feuds that were mentioned in the G-Unit feuds article also received news coverage, but that wasn't a good enough reason to be kept. --- Realest4Life 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we were to list every single rivalry that occurred throughout the decades, there wouldn't be enough room for it in one article. The article is a breeding ground for unsourced info and OR. And in response to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comment that some of these received media coverage, this info can easily be merged into their respective artist pages. The featured Biggie Smalls article is a good example. Spellcast 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonencyclopedic. `'Miikka 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity feud[edit]

Un-encyclopedic, non-notable, trivial content. Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Delete as per the G-Unit feuds article. Lugnuts 19:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Just a rehash of the Hip Hop Rivalries article~~ Scratch that.On second glance, it isn't. Still a delete vote, though.--Ispy1981 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations in the article and I would guess that most of the content is from rumor sites/forums. Also per preceent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds Corpx 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and G-Unit feuds AfD. --- Realest4Life 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete- Although I didnt want the G-Unit Feuds article to be deleted, this should be deleted for the same reasons. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in a tabloid magazine and not an encyclopedia. Spellcast 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac Shakur feuds[edit]

Un-encyclopedic, non-notable, trivial content. Full of alledged and unsourced comments littered with weasel wording. Delete as per the G-Unit feuds article. Lugnuts 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and appears to be original research to some extent. Add any relevant material not already there to the Tupac Shakur article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit feuds and feuds/gossip dont belong on wikipedia Corpx 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and G-Unit feuds AfD. --- Realest4Life 23:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't know why I created that subpage in the first place Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete- Although I didnt want the G-Unit Feuds article to be deleted, this should be deleted for the same reasons. --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this was well sourced, it's best to merge relevant info in the Tupac Shakur page. Spellcast 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Leathem[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable and possibly autobiographical. The same author also created an article about a bookstore (Prosperos Bookstore) owned by the subject, which I have speedy-tagged as spam. If deleted, please also delete W.E. Leathem‎--this was created as an identical article but I changed it to a redirect. --Finngall ^talk 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does claim notability, and a Google search turns up a fair amount of chatter, but a lot of it focuses around a recent book burning at his bookshop; he gets four current Google News hits for that, and News Archives have 35 mentions, including some from when he was apparently an executive assistant in the government. I'm not convinced that cuts it, especially since the book burning thing seems to have been a flash in the pan kind of situation. I don't quite think he meets WP:BIO at this time, so weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, lots of info.. needs to be re-written and sources put in it. Callelinea 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-There are lots of big claims made in the article, "political consultant with notable figures like: Robert Dole, ... John Ashcroft and Margaret Thatcher." Stuff like this really needs to be sourced. Naufana : talk 01:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, he seems to have some local political notability as a legislative aide and campaign worker/manager at both state and federal levels, but never held a key office himself. Poetry and bookstore careers also suggest some name recognition but not real notability. Basically fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn promo. `'Miikka 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, closing early as nominator and notability per WP:MUSIC has been established.--Isotope23 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foals (band)[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted 4 times. This time there is a semi-claim of notability (though unsourced) so I thought AFD is the better place. Despite the claim of being mentioned in NME and playing SXSW, this band fails the WP:MUSIC criteria and the aritcle should be deleted until they meet said criteria. Isotope23 19:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of surprised this has been zapped so often, as I get a lot of play in the British music media for them. BBC interview regarding the SXSW gigs they played and mentioning the signing to a notable record label, Transgressive Records, and an audio interview described as being done on the first day of a national headlining tour. NME does seem to discuss them regularly, though some do seem to be just gig lists with a couple of comments and reviews thrown in. A review on OxfordBands.com, a Guardian Unlimited piece on the band, and another (though on the Blogs section) mentioning them at SXSW. Finally, a Drowned In Sound review of a London gig, and a mention there of Foals backing up Bloc Party for a few gigs. MySpace page (shudder) indicates gigs right through December around Britain. I'd be happier with a second album on a good label, but I think there's enough here for at least a weak keep. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's quite a bit of press Tony Fox dug up. Sad that so much gets A7'ed without so much as a Google search... Chubbles 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meta-comment. Actually, the onus is on the creator of the article to find the information, not the deleter. As a rule, the notability requirement state not only that notability must be asserted, but it must also be referenced. That said, before I delete an article the second time, I will usually do a cursory Google search. I'll also search if there's a shred of something in the article to go on. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What concerns me about A7 deletions is that, I'm rather certain, inherently encyclopedic material gets deleted frequently because it's poorly written - that is, it's written by someone who doesn't know Wikipedia's notability requirements for music, and so doesn't state such in the article. It bothers me as an editor, and as someone who uses Wikipedia specifically as a resource for not-very-well-known music. Ah, if only I wrote policy... Chubbles 00:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There wasn't anything inherently encyclopedic about the versions of this article that were deleted. It was essentially "Foals is a band that plays Math rock" a discography, and a MySpace link. The current version is substantially different and quite a bit meatier.--Isotope23 01:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fox's findings. Notability is asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established and documented per Tony Fox's research. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be fine with a WP:SNOW Keep close of this AFD if someone wants to update the article so notability is established (per Tony's sources above).--Isotope23 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it here in a bit - it needs a rewrite, too. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, updated. Still a few fact tags, but at least there are some links there. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) review? 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it. I'll go ahead and snow this.--Isotope23 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Zombies[edit]

Disputed prod. Apparently non-notable Topps trading card series - no real assertion of notability and no sources other than their own website. WjBscribe 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so it's not our place to speculate as to what this will become. When it is notable, it will get an article. Right now, it would need reliable sources other than its own website. MKoltnow 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Looks like the article is created with the purpose of product promotion, as evidenced by this: [5]. Zondi 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Keep More info has been provided and the article now looks much different from its original version [6]. Zondi 04:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The is a real product on the market right now from a major company. You could make a strong argument that it doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article (it doesn't) but the same logic would disqualify LOTS of articles we keep (bands that never had a hit, particular episodes of bad TV shows, people who name themselves after Transformers ...). This topic does have some notable aspects. For example, cards in this series were drawn by at least four artists who have decent Wikipedia articles (and are presumably notable). Sure this article is a pathetic stub right now, but that's how they usually start out. I think this article needs a least a month to be given the opportunity to establish notability; the product has only been available for a couple weeks. ike9898 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now expanded the article somewhat. Previous 'delete' voters should re-evaluate. ike9898 21:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless reliable sources can be found to confirm that the subject of the article is notable, it should still be deleted (without prejudice to recreation should it become notable in future) no matter how much this article is expanded. It is not for Wikipedia to try to predict the success of a product based on those who have contributed to it - that violates our rules again original research and the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Either this product has been the subject of multiple non-trivial reference in reliable third party sources or it has not - that is the issue that needs to be addressed here. WjBscribe 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now there is a good reference. ike9898 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have to agree per Ike9898. Naufana : talk 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable product from a major company. 23skidoo 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would like to say that I started writing this article amount a month ago. I am not trying to promote this series in anyway, and I agree with the other people who want this article to be kept. This is a card series made by a major card company. This series is very popular and isn't against any Wikipedia rules. There are a million articles on this site that are about a card series just like this. If this article is deleted, you should delete every other card article.andyjoe7and8 July 10, 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hattori Tomosada[edit]

This article on an unnotable person has lacked real sources since its inception, and has been tagged as needing sources and cleanup for 8 months. The only "source" is a video game - this article's content is questionable at best, and although there is a chance that this person is real, the article as it stands should be removed until such time that actual real and verifiable sources are utilized, if this person even proves to be notable at all. The vast majority of google hits are from video games and wikipedia mirror sites. Kuuzo 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it stands this article could be nothing more than fiction purporting to be historical fact. If this is indeed the case it's completely unacceptable. If reliable sources can be found then keep. Naufana : talk 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources provided, and google searches have turned up none to verify individual as an historical figure, although he does appear to be a character in a video game. -- Whpq 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hattori Tomosada was a real person, though this article needs to be revised if it's going to be kept; it doesn't even mention that he was appointed lord of Nagashima Castle by the Honganji and led the revolting Ikkoshu there, and the battle between the Ikkoshu and Oda's forces in Nagashima was an important battle in Japanese history. A quickie google search found some biographical info at the following sites (all in Japanese though): http://hishiki77.ld.infoseek.co.jp/2-2shushi/2-2-7shiro/seimei/hattori.htm, http://hp1.cyberstation.ne.jp/histry/nagashimanenpyou.html, I'm sure a lot more can be found in books or Japanese encyclopedias, of course. There's no denying though that as generals in the Sengoku/Azuchi-Momoyama period go he was a real bit player. Wikipedia Japan doesn't even have an entry on him yet. Masakado 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until verifiable, and yes in English, can be found. ShoesssS ^Talk

13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reason given for possible merge; if desired, information can be added to that article if properly sopurced, then a redirect can be created. Daniel Case 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-1 (rapper)[edit]

Delete: A7 Unremarkable person. Wikipedia is not an obituary. RazielArcanum 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE 68.219.138.68 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a reason why please, AFD isn't a vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper that fails WP:MUSIC Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's the non-notable rapper brother of another rapper. His death is the only reason he even has an article. --RandomOrca2 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created before the death, but wasn't really seen until now. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Onyx (band). Precious Roy 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non notable musician, db-band Giggy _U^CP 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, very consensus reached by now. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)[edit]

Delete as this episode, and the rest of the series, is in pre-production-little infomation will be available until around November time. This was the case with the last 2 seasonal Doctor Who specials. I say delete for now and un-delete closer to the time. Dalejenkins 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – this episode has been confirmed, as has the name, and at least two cast members. Plenty of information available, and fully referenced. — Xy 7 18:50, 06 July 2007
Keep. Can't really see the point of deleting for a short time only for it to be recreated later. Article is fine anyway, its not as if its just a single sentence of what have you. —Xezbeth 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - Episode is already been confirmed, name confirmed cast being assembled why delete when in the next few months it'll be recreated, BBC have already put out press releases/news reports about this episode. SimonD 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is already sufficient well-sourced info in this stub to sustain an article until more data appears. At least two announcements have been made concerning it already; there may well be more between now and November. Even if there isn't, it already is providing properly sourced info to anyone who may be trying to sift such facts from the torrent of speculation, and as such it is serving a good and valuable purpose. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It may be a future episode, but enough concrete data are already present through means of several reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Everything in the article is well-sourced. Meets no deletion criteria whatsoever. Bad-faith nomination. --Edokter (Talk) 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The episode and series are both established and properly sourced. Other articles on this general topic are well-developed, and the associated WikiProject has a proven track record with regards to filtering out speculation and fancruft. The episode has already garnered considerable public attention in Britain and beyond, and will only continue to do so as the airdate approaches. Deleting now, only to recreate in the near future, is pointless. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If all we knew was the title and nothing more I'd say ditch it but since we know it's going to feature the Titanic and we know Ms. Minogue is involved. That's more than nothing so I say go for it staying around.--Anguirus111 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Why bother to re-create? Alientraveller 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What they said Deleting an unreferenced stub is one thing, deleting a fully referenced one is quite another. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced. Agathoclea 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all of the above. Gran² 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keepper all of the above. I agree that this seems to be a bad faith nomination. When was there a time limit put on future productions pages here at wikipedia. HP and the Deathly Hallows already has a film page and that is at leasttwo and a half years from hitting the screens. MarnetteD | Talk 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:V on that one.--JForget 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, info is referenced and episode title confirmed. GracieLizzie 23:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa in popular media[edit]

This article is trying to document every time a town is mentioned in a tv show/movie/song per WP:TRIVIA. I propose a Mergeer of some content to Tulsa and the deletion of the rest Corpx 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure WP:TRIVIA, not a useful list by any stretch of the imagination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again as I mentionned in numerous noms like this, merge some of the more pertinent stuff, but most of it is useless.--JForget 22:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one's probably only a little over 24 hours from deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a good argument for deleting this argument was made by the nominator, it failed to attain sufficient support throughout the debate by the participants, hence I see no other closing option. Daniel 09:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politico-media complex[edit]

The article is the very model of original research. I have no doubts the term has been used, but mostly its use is confined to blogs. I get one hit off searching the BBC news site, and six hits searching a database of UK newspapers, the earliest in 1996 suggesting it was coined either by William Waldegrave or Peter Hennessy, it is unclear if Hennessy is quoting Waldegrave or paraphrasing. No definition is given, and besides which Wikipedia isn't in the definition business, that's Wiktionary. The rest of the article is original research. For example, the article offers examples of programmes which are archetypes, yet no sources are offered for making such claims of these programmes. Also, the article offers the idea that the Iraq war was an example of a policy pushed through the politico-media policy, and that this was a failed policy, and yet there are no secondary sources provided, only primary sources with which the article builds a novel synthesis. Nothing in this article has any substance or any secondary sources, and were we to remove the original research, we would be left with, at best, a definition, best moved to Wiktionary. I'm not even sure a useful definition can be sourced in a reliable secondary source. I believe the article should be deleted. Hiding Talk 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N Delete per WP:FRINGE. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it seems to be well-sourced, mildly interesting, and vaguely notable. Bearian 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what sense do those sources support the statements made though? They seem to ofer nothing of verifiability to the article. Hiding Talk 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research. There is no doubt term exists, but the article apepars to be synthesis of facts. As for the long reference list, it includes blogs wich aren't reliable sources and newspaper articles where the phrase is mentioned. -- Whpq 17:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author) - Guess I ought to prop it up a bit. The angst being expressed by the 'dissenters' appears to me to be more a struggle of understanding the difference between 'the thing' and 'the name of the thing.' The (Ancient) Greeks, as usual, sent a message (on identity):

Hesperus and Phosphorus

At the risk of being accused of wandering away from the point, I've seen this before around here, and certainly with one of the protagonist opposers (and a colleague) with seeing that a 'name' for socialism (which it most definitely is not):

"... the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them"

is a variant of the 'name' Golden Rule which, in action, is the process encapsulated (up to a point) by the 'name' Ethic of reciprocity - basic 'good manners.'

So, politico-media complex is a name for a process of mutual satisfaction of interests between the political classes and the media interests - and the mutual falling-outs with each other when someone is not getting the satisfaction they think they deserve and with all the problems for democracy that this implies. So I point to Rawnsley's reference to and description of the PMC:

A conspiracy that threatens democracy. That's from a mainstream newspaper organization and an extremely well-known journalist (in the UK, at least).

As for 'pushing through' of the war agenda by the PMC, well how short are our memories? As we speak, Campbell (Blair's spin doctor) is trying to 'push through' his recollections, via his diaries, of how the war was sold to the British - look at the red-top mass title that was so gung-ho, and who owns it? Who says how important it was to cosy-up to this title?

Of course, exactly the same process is described in Chomsky's, Manufacturing Consent:

Manufacturing Consent

names it 'the propaganda model,' and uses the selling of the war in Vietnam as a key exemplar. The Iraq war, complete with the all too apparent latest collapse of consensus in Congress, particularly, runs on railway tracks following the same path as rats leave sinking ships. That's what is known as a failed policy.

So, the key identity for the process is:

politico-media complex = propaganda model

'Novel synthesis?' I don't think so. As a colleague from days gone by in computing science said to me one day ... a lot of fancy 're-naming' goes on in this business.

Oh, btw. apply the same putative standards of 'novel synthesis' analysis and deprecation of the reference values of (mere) newspapers and blogs to other symmetrical contributions, such as prison-industrial complex and (as far as newspaper and blog references are concerned) probably thousands of other Wiki pages. Dsmith1usa 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. The subject is interesting but the article is an horrendous mess of OR, quoting put of context, and POV pushing. This cleanup does not need to wait for the AfD to conclude, it needs to be done now ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Author) Well, yes, compost heaps may develop as a model (propaganda model aka politico-media complex) is being tested, yet again, (and corroborated):

Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

in real time. It tends to turn to the shorthand that erupts in any 'test-log.'

History is messy and always needs to be 'cleaned-up,' for mass consumption especially when it comes to matters of war, strategy and tactics (as an aside, when will one of Bush's military men explain to that 'fine C in C' that his 'Surge' is a tactic and not a strategy?)

Tolstoy's comments on the illusions of will in War and Peace illuminate some. His contempt for historians is clear as is the similar contempt of Clausewitz for the recollectors of war in On War/Vom Kreig. (Tolstoy's antipathy to Germans expressed through his bringing Clausewitz to his stage is something paradoxical to me. I think Clausewitz was with him on this.)

As for quotes 'out of context,' well, I guess the dangers of the appearance of this comes with this particular turf right now, as so many things are in flux. And since so many things are in flux, why be in such a rush (... it needs to be done now)?

Pushing a POV? Well, give me a little slack with the impression I leave of my tongue in my cheek, while I write sometimes. After seven years of opposing Bush, I need a little bit of amusement from time to time, I'll think you'll agree ;-)Dsmith1usa 10:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mckee library[edit]

Failed prod. No assertion of notability of this library is made. No reliable sources are cited. MKoltnow 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable college library building. NawlinWiki 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete libraries are not inherently notable Corpx 17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small college library, and not intrinsically notable, and not notable for anything in particular. . DGG (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If the library is historical or architecturally significant then keep it, but since the article does not state either of those nor does it have sources, then get rid of it. Callelinea 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand This article discusses the library of a major Seventh-Day Adventist University. The article needs completion, but it definitely should not be deleted.--Honorarysouthernstudents 04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of libraries at plenty of universities. This one's not any different. Corpx 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have userified it at User:Honorarysouthernstudents/McKee Library Some of the material could be used for the article on the university, which really needs work. Even for the most important of libraries, discussing the rearrangement of books would be excessive detail. DGG (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx is wrong. The Thomas Memorial collection, with many rare books and artifacts relating to the Civil War, makes the McKee Library highly unique. This article has been expanded to show the library's notability; Not only does it contain the Thomas Memorial Collection, it also houses a major collection of Ellen White materials (over 20,000 volumes), who was probably the single most important figure in Seventh-Day Adventist History. Do not delete this article! (Furthermore, reliable sources are now cited)--Honorarysouthernstudents 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Reliable sources to determine the notability of a university library cannot include the university's own website. They are fine for verifiability of facts in the article but carry no weight as to notability. If every garage band or company with a website could establish notability through its own website, the encyclopedia would be full of articles which are totally unencyclopedic. Also, Honorarysouthernstudents has already registered a vote, and has not mentioned his/her position as creator of this article. MKoltnow 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1 - we're not 'voting', we're discussing. 2 - he was replying to another's comment. 3 - it was fairly obvious from his comments that he was likely the creator while you didn't mention that you called for speedy deletion when this article was 1 minute old and just a stub. Canuckle 21:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment (referring to 1,2 above) When I referred to 'vote', I used that term because s/he prefaced "Corpx is wrong." with "Keep". To be fair, the "Keep" has been removed by Honorarysouthernstudents. (referring to 3 above) I don't know whether it was obvious that s/he was the creator, but WP:AFD asks editors to please disclose when they are primary authors or have a vested interest in the article. I do not think that I have any conflict of interest as the editor who marked an article for speedy deletion (incorrectly with a7, see my talk page) then proposed it for deletion to fail to disclose that I am the editor who nominated it under AfD. As far as the length of time before my initial decision, I make many quick decisions to nominate articles for speedy deletion; this one was no exception. Sometimes I am just wrong; most of the time the articles head quickly for the bin. I added my comment after [7] this appeared on my talk page, placed by Honorarysouthernstudents. MKoltnow 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional context. It's typically helpful to get a full picture. I didn't say your actions were wrong or COI but that it's helpful for all relevant info to be disclosed and we're supposed to help newbies. Regards - Canuckle 22:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lincoln collection content to McKee Library (spelled with capital-K) section of Southern Adventist University. hours and temporary places to find books during renovations will not survive the passage of time. Reliable, independent sources are required to grow the content. Canuckle 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to comic book, where the information can be added in the right place. Daniel Case 03:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book art[edit]

Delete due to lack of importance. This information is better described in the article Comic book and related articles Konczewski 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to comic book. This article doesnt add anymore info than Comic Book Corpx 17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see no mention of pencilers or inkers on the comic book page, so this page does add new information. Artw 18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with comic book which appears to lack this information. Am I wrong or isn't it within the purview of users/editors to blank pages and make such redirects without need to go to AfD? Canuckle 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comic book Giggy _U^CP 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Latimer[edit]

Non-notable reality show contestant per WP:BIO. I couldn't find any sources on him - not even tabloids, which says something in itself. Crystallina 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reality show contestants are not notable unless they do something (notable) outside the show Corpx 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Corpx. John Vandenberg 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it/him. He is a celebrity from Conway SC, a culturally under-represented area. Missfidget 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, but not per Corpx (sorry, if you win a major game/reality show, you are notable, IMHO). Bearian 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Noling[edit]

I proposed this for deletion a few days ago because the sources are so poor and it's practically an orphan. Someone removed the tag saying the sources are okay but didn't improve it in any way so here we are. I suggest that unless this piece can be sourced adequately we simply delete it. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - murder is NOT a notable act. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 13:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Something like this : (redacted -Tony Sidaway) should at least be properly sourced if not removed entirely. MartinDK 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did intend to go through and remove the unsourced negative stuff. I'll do so now. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have found the sources in question, and restored the text which they support: several Ohio newspapers, including the Plain Dealer, an unquestionably RS. The article now shows why it is notable: apparent a rather obvious use of false testimony, and a truly remarkable denial of access to evidence, made available to a newspaper, but not the defendant, a denial which was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. I have not added the primary sources from the court documents, since they are fully reported by the newspapers.DGG 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed--the material Tony deleted was hardly "negative" material--it's the material tending to exculpate the defendant. DGG 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material deleted because it was partisan and very dodgily sourced. --Tony Sidaway 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a source for the claim that the prosecutor is disgraced. Such a term is inherently POV and the fact that it was used, in addition to the article being horribly one-sided, makes me think that this was added by one of the parties themselves and as such it constitutes clear abuse of Wikipedia to gather attention to an otherwise unfortunately non-notable case. There are truckloads of stories like these all over the world - the fact that a handful of sources from the local media can be found does not make it notable. MartinDK 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed on that comment about the prosecutor--it has to be found in the sources. There probably is a separate article there--the home p. for the lawyer who defended him [8] boasts "[he] pleaded guilty ... and agreed to quit his job in exchange for the dropping of multiple federal charges..." (from the Akron Beacon Journal.) As for the rest of Tony's far reaching deletions, it's all in the articles.--I suppose they have to be put in the footnotes, sentence by sentence. DGG 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to understand why the extensive Cleveland Scene article, even by itself, would be a poor source. I suspect an underlying POV is the real problem. Since ther are about 5000 U.S. murders a year and over 1.8 million Wikipedia articles (and growing), I do not think there is much basis for excluding any murder as non-notable. This double homicide case is a good story. --Danras 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the Cleveland Scene article was it was not clear whether it was only an online paper, or one of just local significance--had that been the only source, I'd have supported deletion. Possibly all murders might prove notable if sufficiently researched, but in practice only some will have the sources available. This one is notable for the claims of improper prosecution & the Ohio Supreme Court decision. DGG 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _→AzaToth 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, does pass WP:RS but I'm not entirely sure if that's enough... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, I have strong problems with a one sentence article. There is a story there a notable story, there are plenty sources, BUT there really is no article written. Callelinea 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the only reason its a one sentence article is that Tony removed material supported by the refs but not sufficiently source,d & I did not want to revert him. Check previous versions. DGG (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, what we have here is a man convicted of homicide who some people believe may be innocent or whose trial was at least conducted unfairly. While I am in favor of such efforts at transparency and review, there are dozens if not hundreds of similar cases and this one doesn't seem to have really achieved notability as a representative of the class. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there hundreds that have gotten the repeated notice of newspapers of the quality of the Plain Dealer? If so, let's put them in. Just give the refs. DGG (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Ebv-wiki, TenPoundHammer and Dhartung. Bearian 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Dhartung. Accounting4Taste 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete murder is notable if there are articles etc. about it...not sure if there are any though, but is not inherently non notable. Giggy _U^CP 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{*listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography. Of course I now see this AfD is older than I first thought so may not be news to them/you Canuckle 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ballZ/GT power levels[edit]

Nonnotable Dragon Ball Z trivia. NawlinWiki 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonencyclopedic trivia. I can't even see how the information comes from the website used as a "source". Katherine Tredwell 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wikipedia is not a gameguide in WP:NOT Corpx 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a huge DB/DBZ/DBGT fan, but I don't see how this doesn't fail WP:NOT. I should also point out that they stopped mentioning specific power levels after a certain point in DBZ, so anything after (other than the occasioal exceptions) would be speculation by fansites. TJ Spyke 23:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like advertising by the creator of the article too, since he/she even says that there are no official numbers after the Frieza sage and he is estimating them. TJ Spyke 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Instead of deleting it, it should just have the accurate, undisputable values for the powerlevels up to and including the Freeza saga. Also the Bardock TV Special used Scouters and have accurate PLs. Truballer07 05:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Meaningless, pointless, useless numbers that only a DBZ fan would be remotely interested in. --Hemlock Martinis 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi vehicles in media[edit]

I am listing this article for deletion because many cars appear in the media, and I don't see how Mitsubishis appearing in the media are notible enough to have an article devoted to it. Karrmann 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run over it. Oh look, a new form of spam. Clarityfiend 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Katherine Tredwell 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to document every time a Mitsubishi vehicle is shown on tv/movie show. Corpx 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It started as a repository for Mitsubishi GTO's trivia section after I threatened to expunge it,[9] and I later subsumed the cruft from other models' pages into this single compost heap. No argument from me that it deserves to go; I'm just surprised it lasted this long. --DeLarge 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before some fan of The Simpsons decides to add a reference. --Fightingirish 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more trivia stuff.--JForget 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruftacious, unmaintainable list. Blueboy 96 03:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, I failed, I say Delete. The only part I think I can salvage is to figure out where in the Jackie Chan article where I can mention his business relationship with Mitsubishi Motors. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rosenberg[edit]

This was an unsourced orphan living biography, tagged as orphan for ten months. I proposed it for deletion a few days ago but the tag was removed so here we are. I suggest that we delete it unless it can be adequately sourced. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone adds sources; it fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Katherine Tredwell 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is neither a negative tone nor negative assertions, but the notability rests upon performances at comedy festivals, and there's no documentation for either that, or for the notability of the festivals concerned. DGG (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Plenty of stuff on google on him, put some in article. Callelinea 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have enough, but #1 is his home page, #2 is a poem & no reason to think its by the same person--its not comic & the article never mentions poetry #3 is IMDB, which is no evidence for notability, #4 is his own show, #5 is his self-published book, $6 is his self published video. #7 seems to be an advertisement of his offer to teach people how to be a comic, but it mentions some info that might make for notability if it were sourced. DGG (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article asserts notability, per Callelinea, and the "external links" can be expanded and cited as sources. Needs a lot of work. Bearian 20:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Montreal Festival is considered the best of the best in the comedy world and if he is an alumni of that, he is legit.
Delete notability. Still nothing at Special:Whatlinkshere/Dan_Rosenberg. Giggy _U^CP 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two sentences moved to the main article, according to below, and that's probably plenty. Daniel 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse James Burke[edit]

This article takes a long time to say that its subject is hardly mentioned in a major biography of his family, he ~~did some babysitting~~ was babysat (I am not making this up!) and he does not appear as a character in Goodfellas. I suggest that we delete this for lack of meaningful content. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring out the cement overshoes. He was babysat by Henry Hill and his wife. What? That isn't notable enough? Clarityfiend 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability does not extend to family members Corpx 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Perhaps add the information to the Jimmy Burke article? --Fightingirish 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a merge. Sure, but what information is there to merge? The fact that he isn't mentioned much in the biography, the fact that he had a babysitter, or the fact that he didn't appear as a character in Goodfellas? --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with his father's article. Callelinea 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I gave him two sentences (to run consecutively) in his dad's article. Clarityfiend 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. (Wikimachine 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete parenthood doesn't assert notability. Giggy _U^CP 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ditto; there is no notability here. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It should be noted that something being a school does not make it a speedy keep candidate. --Core desat 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Grace School[edit]

Mostly non-notable, with a pinch of patent nonsense. Hux 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that gives notability Corpx 17:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. No further discussion needed. Katherine Tredwell 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change my vote to Delete now that the unsourced personal comments are removed. (Note though that concern about biographies of living persons is not limited to attacks!) Just because the subject could be an encyclopedia article, doesn't mean this qualifies. If someone wants to recreate with a better quality article, with more facts and less rumor, fine. Katherine Tredwell 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Attacks removed. All high schools should have an article and most do. No further discussion needed. Casperonline 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should all high schools have an article? Given that Wikipedia articles are about notability I'm struggling to see how "it's a high school" is, in and of itself, a notable thing. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Hux 21:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any consensus, the view that all schools are notable is defensible, if unlikely to convince. A Speedy Keep vote is not appropriate, however. Delete. Eusebeus 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps the school is notable, but the article does not show it. The two major assertions is that there are not hidden tunnels under the school, and that they have a website. DGG (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If the school was historical or had notable alumni then maybe keep, but as written and sourced remove it. Callelinea 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expel with the possibility of enrollment next term—I mean, delete (without prejudice). This article ought be cut down to one sentence, since the rest is opinion, peacock words and praise, or speculation. That's way too bare of a stub to keep. Once there's a decent amount of verifiable content, though, the article can be recreated. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 06:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article sounds like it's copied from a brochure. MetsFan76 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 11:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Challenge (Ohio)[edit]

Non-notable, un-encyclopedic, entry full of original research. Seems quite trivial. trey^{Sex Me} 16:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable example of a long-running local television quiz show. - EurekaLott 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. (Wikimachine 13:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please keep. This show was a Cleveland-area institution and very notable.

Keep dude, it appeared on highly broadcasted television. Giggy _U^CP 22:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Moore (candidate)[edit]

I PRODded this article with the rationale, "A fringe candidate for president, with no significant assertion of notability." Administrator User:DGG declined the prod, writing, "Probably controversial, so try afd" - so here we are. :) Shalom ^Hello 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable as presidential candidate, but seems like a prominent performance artist per cited sources and description. If kept, article title should be changed accordingly. NawlinWiki 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but move to Frank Moore (artist). Lots of Google hits for eroplay, though we do need more reliable sources, since only one in this article is not from the subject himself. Corvus cornix 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that too was my logic--not the politics. We can expect that a good many people with some degree of notability elsewhere are going to run for office, most with no particular likelihood of success, but will still be notable otherwise. Not an AfD matter, but we should be on the lookout for people with the designation (candidate) or (politician) in the article titles--it may not always be justified. His full name is Frank James Moore, a better title.DGG (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nn political figure but notable performance artist. Article needs a lot of work though. Bigdaddy1981 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article content, but move to Frank Moore (artist) per Corvus cornix. Notable as an artist, not so much as a candidate. (Further, I don't think a redirect needs to be left at Frank Moore (candidate) afterward.) —C.Fred (talk)

Comment I agree with C.Fred r.e. redirect. Bigdaddy1981 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the article needs a lot of editing for a NPOV. Bearian 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Will move the article to Frank James Moore (artist) and am continuing to work on editing the article. -- Eroplay
- Please read WP:COI. Corvus cornix 22:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE. I am adding this comment to the closed AfD to get the attention of participants for the discussion on renaming the article, over at Talk:Frank Moore (artist)#Requested move. EdJohnston 12:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, especially given the recent improvements. Daniel 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhash Kumar[edit]

This was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD A7. DRV restored the article in light of new sources, given at the DRV. Still, weak delete given continued notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week keep~~ Keep (see below) on the basis of the titles of the publications given. I can not see how to document the additional publications claimed, in the absence of accessible indexes for Indian periodicals--I've asked the author of the article for assistance in this.DGG (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix or delete I'm sorry, I went through the DRV before looking at the article and there are a couple of things that trouble me. First, this article is STILL a copyvio of the usurpia article, unless usurpia is a Wikimirror. Second, blatant COI. The author of the article IS the subject.--Ispy1981 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Yousurp is mirrorring this article. But as far as I can tell, they have not made it available downstream as GFDL licensed. So its they who are in violation. --soum ^talk 15:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added 4 good references mentioned in DRV but not yet added to the article. Though they do not yet document everything, they seem quite sufficient to show his poisiton and importance. I changed from Weak Keep to Keep.DGG (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatopian Psychology[edit]

WP:OR, no reliable sources Piperdown 16:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete this is based on the pulitzer winner's work, so I would put it as WP:OR Corpx 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any reasonable contents into the article on Becker, a reasonably good article. The philosophy is not notable separately, and not even the website provides any references or information. It seems to have been used nowhere else. Every web link is a sponsored ad by the institute. DGG (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above comments. Bearian 20:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete by Evilclown93. Non-admin close. Whispe ring 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Tolls, Doctor[edit]

Patent hoax. Nothing cited, no information is available on the next series bar writers/directors. prod'ing leaves this article here for another week; it ought to be speedied but someone removed the speedy tag. Stephenb (Talk) 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax is not a criteria for speedy deletion but Delete unless sources can be found. Agathoclea 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Possible hoax. EdJohnston 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Evilclown93. Non-admin close. Whispe ring 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Street's End[edit]

Patent hoax. Nothing cited, no information is available on the next series bar writers/directors. prod'ing leaves this article here for another week; it ought to be speedied but someone removed the speedy tag. Stephenb (Talk) 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax is not a criteria for speedy deletion but Delete unless sources can be found. Agathoclea 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR/HOAX as no Google hits mentions about a show with that title.--JForget 23:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. No Google, MSN or yarhoo hits.--86.29.245.48 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at paper publications (TV Zone, DWB) where directors and scriptwriters are being widely discussed and confirmed ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Evilclown93. Non-admin close Whispe ring 14:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bacterium[edit]

Patent hoax. Nothing cited, no information is available on the next series bar writers/directors. prod'ing leaves this article here for another week; it ought to be speedied but someone removed the speedy tag. Stephenb (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax is not a criteria for speedy deletion but Delete unless sources can be found. Agathoclea 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources, possible hoax. EdJohnston 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley Lehman[edit]

This article was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding a claim of notability was present. Still, Delete, as the article currently lacks reliable sources, pending other opinions. Xoloz 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review should have been closed as an endorsement of deletion. Two guys with a bee in their bonnet about speedy deletion do not constitute consensus for undeletion. Stop wasting our time. --Tony Sidaway 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your time is that valuable, keep your snide comments to yourself. CSD are specific for a reason, yet admins excessively misapply those criteria. Your words act to promote tolerance of their ignorance. BigNate37 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What really wastes time is unjustified CSDs deletions, which--if anyone notices--lead inevitably into Deletion Review, and then AfD. Easier to simply send here in the first place if there is some claim to notability and it looks like a prod would be removed. (I was not one of those commenting at the DelRev) DGG (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will most likely emerge from this deletion discussion that the original deletion was completely justified. The person who listed it for undeletion was, I suspect, simply acting as a dog in the manger rather than considering what was best for Wikipedia. All anybody needed to do if he objected to the original speedy was to create a new, correctly sourced article, containing whatever verifiable information could be gleaned about this person, to a level that would render this article undeletable. This could have been done days ago. Instead of that we've had days and days of pointless discussion, followed by a mindlessly bureaucratic undeletion with a mindlessly bureaucratic nomination for deletion, and absolutely no attempt to create a new article. Stupid and wasteful of all our time. Nevertheless I commend User:BigNate37 for at least trying to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some quick Googling confirms the content. ~~Needs~~ Needed a little wikifying, but that's fine. Note that there is was a potential copyvio with http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1172599/bio. I've cleaned it up some [10], so bear that in mind. BigNate37 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, unless thoroughly revised. No sources are given for the information. While a stunt-man with a long career may well establish notability, this article does not: it mentions instead that he is the friend of another actor, and names his wife, and names some actors whose stunts he did. A helpful article, by contrast, would name some specific films on which he's worked, and other career related information. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of the absence of any reliable sources in the article, I've performed a Jimbo-style stubbing. Reliably sourced information about this person should be added. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we did not remove content while material was on AfD--someone reverted it, of course, but it hinders the process--and wastes time.DGG (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you got that thought from. It's wrong. Articles are open for editing at all times, and it's quite in order to stub down an article where it's full of unsourced statements. This applies especially strongly to articles about living persons. Your claim that the stubbing down was reverted is incorrect. User:BigNate37 has begun to add sourced information, where there was none before. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont think stuntmen are "major roles" in a movie. A search through google archives finds only trivial info on this person. Corpx 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stuntmen are not inherently notable, if he is an example of someone outstanding in the field, then that's a different story, but this article doesn't say so. Corvus cornix 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Stuntmen can of course be notable, but not just from the credits on a small number of movies.DGG (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not even a claim of notability, this is speedyable. Until(1 == 2) 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I would like a larger article and more sources, but as it is it passes to me. Him being friends with who he doubles for I don't think is needed. Callelinea 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot see how this person is notable in any way. Bigdaddy1981
Delete as unnotable stuntman. Nuff said. Eusebeus 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On their own, IMDB references do not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO, so delete unless evidence of further reliable sources is found. However, I also agree with DGG that speedying this article was inappropriate, and it should have gone straight to AfD to start with. Walton^talk 13:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments raised about "we need a stub to start with" didn't answer the "but this violates WP:NOT". Daniel 05:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forming fluid[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, henceforth, this should be transwikied or deleted --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not a dictionary Corpx 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Katherine Tredwell 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me to be a valid stub on a subject that could have an encyclopedia article written about it. JulesH 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearian 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a valid stub article. We need to start out with a stub if we're going to have an article ever created. The Evil Spartan 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitionary Giggy _U^CP 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have no idea of the exact meaning of this article from the American Institute of Physics but it seems like a legit process appropriate for an encyclopedia. Canuckle 22:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use the dictionary. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If the sources noted below don't come through, then another AfD might be appropriate. However, this debate does not yield a consensus to keep. Daniel 09:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Jett[edit]

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present. Still, Delete, given lack of reliable sources and COI concerns (COI concerns were admitted at the linked DRV.) Xoloz 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep on condition that the article is cleaned up and notability asserted. If sources do exist then it shouldn't be too hard to insert two of them. I see no BLP problems and we don't delete articles because they require cleanup or are stubs. Also, COI is not in itself a reson for deletion when the article is otherwise salvageable. MartinDK 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless cleaned up. Even stubs should be held to some standard; to me, this one falls short of it. BigNate37_(T) 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS's. Piperdown 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on hits at google news archive. There are definitely articles there which establish notability Corpx 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Strange, I don't see anything in those seven hits especially notable about Joey Jett, but I did think there was some merit to the nine you found for the Oakley Lehman AfD, which you said was only trivial information. Could you give more detail please? BigNate37_(T) 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first article from the washington post is solely about this kid, counting for "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" from WP:BIO. Here's another article about this person Corpx 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, nice work. In that case, I don't think this article should be deleted, though my original sentiment that it should not exist in its current state remains. BigNate37_(T) 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of what has now been foundDGG (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal ashram[edit]

This article was rightly deleted as a copyvio; however, DRV restored the one non-copyvio revision in its history as asserting notability. Still, Delete, given lack of sources, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources. The Rambling Man 15:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no RS's. Piperdown 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable due to lack of media mentions + their site is hosted on tripod.com Corpx 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A feature article in a major Indian newspaper has been added to the refs., and a site listing others. DGG (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, but non copyvio. Meh, at least delete it in its best state :P Giggy _U^CP 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting can be done editorially. Daniel 05:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life on neutron stars[edit]

Unsourced original research and speculation. Note: there was some kind of squabbling in the history of this debate by a few inexperienced users. MER-C 05:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seeing as this allegedly originated from two notable persons, it's remotely possibly notable (although probably better to merge to one of said person's own page). It would have helped if the page's creator had actually named which books this theory originated from so that what is not original research could be easily verified. Someguy1221 06:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rank speculation. Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable if commented on by third-party sources. Article essentially consists of original research. Tree Kittens 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, I seem to recall something related to this in a book by Larry Niven (in a commentary section, not in a story). This source [11] may be reliable, but I'm not sure. I can also find something that indicates Hans Moravec may have covered the idea. So I'm not convinced to keep, but I'd like some exploration of the issues before deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly speculation in nature. It consists of unpublished facts and theories. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If reliable sources or notable people have commented on the speculation, would it not be best to mention this in passing in articles like Neutron star or extraterrestrial life rather than have an article on the speculation? How could we be expected to find reliable sources to contradict the assertion that life on neutron stars is plausible? How could we make the article neutral without introducing original research of our own? Tree Kittens 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A reliable source on xenobiologic speculation would likely clearly label this theory as just that, speculation. And so there is (hopefully) no need to insert original research to make clear there is no evidence for this. Someone would just have to locate an actual source first. Further, the novels that allegedly sparked this theory (according to the article) are fiction, so that makes it pretty clear too. Someguy1221 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if that speculation exists, and if third parties are discussing the speculation, it's notable speculation (and I don't know one way or the other at this point, so I'm not voting). Something doesn't have to be true to be in Wikipedia: we have articles on fan death and many ancient myths. This isn't scientifictopicsonlypleasepedia or geekguysapprovepedia; we cover what's been noted by reliable sources, not what we know is true (which in itself would be original research). --Charlene 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to say what these reliable sources are. Tree Kittens 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And if no xenobiologist has commented on it? Then we're not allowed to say it's unlikely because that would be original research. We're not even allowed to say that no xenobiologist has commented on it, unless another reliable source has said so, because that too would be original research. We'd just have to put up with the absurdity of it. Tree Kittens 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think a solution can be provided without knowing what the sources say yet, if they actually exist. Someguy1221 07:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're absolutely right. I'm new to this process, so do excuse my over enthusiasm. Best regards Tree Kittens 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Concepts hypothesised in fiction are only notable" by Tree Kittens - Lack of notability for this concept Corpx 08:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jreferee's findings below Corpx 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add additional sources to better show the influence, reception of this fascinating theory. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, speculative, fictitious, etc. No one would put forth a serious work devoted to the possibility of life on a neutron star - anything that can be found will be a work of fiction or a tongue-in-cheek joke. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the presence of life on a neutron star may be unlikely, it has been used as a literary device by Robert Forward. Use by a single author isn't likely to be notable, but a quick search of Amazon turns up at least a half dozen books that cite Forward's use of the concept as an example. They use it to illustrate the extremes types of alien life that have been imagined by Science Fiction authors. Burzmali 16:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't consider the extent of general discussion significant, even if it were inserted in the article.. We are, by the way, permitted to engage in the necessary research of sources to se if it is discussed or not. The website given as the ref does not seem operative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 Jul 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Dragon's Egg. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon's Egg. Someguy1221 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, one of the many interesting ideas suggested by Robert L. Forward, but not limited to him, so I don't think it should be redirected to Dragon's Egg. Speculation about what life could exist in high-gravity, whether Jupiter or a neutron star, is one of those concepts developed by scientists turned science fiction authors. Mandsford 23:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dragon's Egg. As it is now, it depends on one academic website, not functioning right now. If we find a source, it should be a paragraph in that article; if there come to be several sources, we can separate it off again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Only source is self published. --SmokeyJoe 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An archived version of the source is available here: [12]. It is no more and no less speculative than its parent subject, exobiology. --Victor falk 07:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That page is no more notable than a blog. Just because it is hosted on a university domain doesnt imply notability. Corpx 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source has been misunderstood. It is not about life on neutron stars at all, but the issue of scale in physics as it relates to thestrong force and other fundamental forces. The comment at the top about the possibility of life is a throw-away remark to set up an analogy to explain this. The author is not actually asserting the possibility. Has anyone found a reliable third-party source for the article? Tree Kittens 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this inconsistent with the last two paragraphs, which make arguments about the speed of evolution in the enviroment of a neutron star. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - His allusion to the "speed of evolution" is an illustrative example of how forces at different scales cause certain types of event to happen more quickly. He is using the evolutionary time-scale as a descriptive and pedagogic analogy. If this source is accepted as reliable for this topic however, maybe we can look forward to articles on Civilisations on neutron stars, and Evolution on neutron stars... By the way, does anyone know the author of this essay? Have any other sources been discovered? Tree Kittens 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay was course material for an undergraduate physics course on how physics has been used in the creation of science fiction[13] by Dr. Terry Boyce, while he was Honorary Associate Professor at the Physics Dept. of Hong Kong University.[14] He retired in 2004.[15] --Lambiam ^Talk 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You drive me to incivility; but I shall simply quote the paragraph:
      Since the time scale for strong-force life (typically 10-21 s) is only a minute fraction of the time scale for electromagnetic-force life (typically a thousandth of a second), we expect evolution to proceed that much more rapidly. The origin of life would then take not 1 billion years, as on Earth, but one billionth of a year - about one-thirtieth of a second. This seems a short time to us, but it would allow billions and billions of interactions for each of the complex nuclei, allowing entire civilizations to evolve faster than the human eye can wink. The individual members of these civilizations would be about 10-13 m in size and would live for about 10-15 s. For communication, they would probably use gamma-ray photons at a frequency 1010 times greater than that of visible light photons.
    Please do not cloud our discussion further. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I am sorry to have bothered you. I was making a perfectly valid point, with which you are perfectly entitled to disagree. In my humble opinion your large quotation largely supports my point especially when read in the context of the whole essay. I have no intention of "clouding our discussion"; quite the opposite. It would be good if people would say whether they regard the source as meeting Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Identifying its author would be a good start. Failing that, another source would help. Best regards Tree Kittens 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Speculative topic with no peer-reviewed scientific publications to provide credibility. — RJH (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Purely speculative essay, apparently inspired by Dragon's Egg. Merging with or redirecting to Dragon's Egg is acceptable is as alternate action. --EMS | Talk 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nonsensical drivel at best. Agree with ems57cva as an acceptable outcome, if it would placate the author. Jgassens 20:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research devoid of reliable sources, not much more to say. Trusilver 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After a quick Google books search, I found at least four novels that address this hypothesis. With a little more effort, it is very likely that there are more reliable sources. The topic easily meets Wikipedia:notability. Comment: The novel Dragon's Egg is only notable if commented on by third-party sources. However, Dragon's Egg itself counts as a reliable source for this topic in determining Wikipedia notability. Notable hypothesis, speculation, and hoaxes still receive Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not censored merely because someone finds a hypothesis or speculation objectionable. Some references:
- Forward, Robert (1980) Dragon's Egg. Publisher Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-28646-4
- Goldsmith, Donald; Owen, Tobias. (June 30, 1992) Search for Life in the Universe. Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-20156-949-3
- Hey, Tony; Walters, Patrick. (September 13, 1997) Einstein's Mirror. Publisher: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-52143-532-3
- Nahin , Paul J.; Thorne, K.S. (April 20, 2001) Time Machines: Time Travel in Physics, Metaphysics, and Science Fiction. Publisher: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-38798-571-9

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You address the notability of the topic, but the concern is that the contents of the article is original research – which is a very different concern. You added all these publications as references. But are they sources for the contents? Can the various claims made in the article be verified from these references? --Lambiam ^Talk 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can demonstrate that this isn't an original synthesis/analysis. The books themselves are primary sources. This would only seem to be either notable or not OR if there's any RS material discussing it. SamBC 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It can come in another life if something notable is found. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel 05:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G.ho.st[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted several times, without ever having had an AfD. DRV restored the article, finding an assertion of notability, and finding prior CSD G4 speedy deletions invalid (since there was no governing AfD.) Still, Delete, as the only sources are unreliable, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources: [16] [17] [18] JulesH 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That first ref above is a feature article at InfoWord: "Can Ghost scare Microsoft?" DGG (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete All 'references' seem to contain lots of speculation. As of yet it does nothing particulary notable. Ian¹³ /t 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD notice was removed from the article on 8/7 [19]. Now restored. Ian¹³ /t 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no attempt to establish any form of notability. Vegaswikian 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First let me disclose my relationship to G.ho.st. Re. notability G.ho.st has received serious reviews in mainstream press InfoWorld, RedHerring, TechRepbulic, PC World Canada, local mainstream newspapers from the Jerusalem Post to the Times of of India, and many others. It has been covered in thousands of blogs. Googling "G.ho.st" returns 120,000 relevant hits. G.ho.st won one of ten ComputerWorld Horizon awards this year (to be officially announced in August). G.ho.st has been selected to present at Innovate!Europe and other conferences. There are tens of thousands of users growing daily. All competitors have Wikipedia articles. As well as technology and market we have a fairly unique social aspect with a joint Israeli-Palestinian team. I am big fan of Wikipedia and would not want to in any way reduce its qualify but I am not quite clear what more needs to be done to establish notability and would appreciate advice on that point. Thanks for everyone's consideration Zvis 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just to make it clear to closing admin: this user is connected to the article's subject. Ian¹³ /t 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. G.ho.st seems like a perfectly reasonable entry to keep in an encyclopedia given their notoriety in the web2.0 world for both their product, approach and team. This is a growing area of services and would seem foolish to not include it.--Sdemw 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: First edit from this account. Ian¹³ /t 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Seems barely notable, I am sort of reluctant in this one. --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the webtop space is in its infancy, it garners considerable attention from the blogosphere, the venture capital community and large software companies. If successful, webtops could finalize the internet and web-services revolution. I think it is a space worth tracking, and G.ho.st is certainly a notable company within the space. OriW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.217.9 (talk • contribs)
- Comment This refers to Zvis comment made. Refering to WP:BIGNUMBER, we can't really say we should keep an article because it has 120,000 relevant hits on google, also see WP:GOOGLEHITS, just because the site gets lots of hits on google doesn't automaticaly make it relevant and useful in wikipedia --♫Twinkler4♫ ^{(Talk to me!)} 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are sufficient non-trivial sources which demonstrate notability of this subject. (jarbarf) 03:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calactydacus plant[edit]

Delete - This appears to be a joke/hoax related to the Bytheria article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bytheria). A web search turns up hardly any other web pages on the topic. It could be a candidate for speedy deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly a hoax. Johnbod 15:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a web of fiction being constructed along with Bytheria. ●DanMS • Talk 00:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, and not verifiable. Cardamon 03:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Dan Gluck 13:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; however, if anyone wants to transwiki this, let me know and appropriate measures will be taken. — Deckill er 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time[edit]

Large page filled with mostly non-notable locations from a single game with very little if any sourcing. DurinsBane87 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - while I can agree with the rationale, we need to make absolutely sure that we transwiki this - a lot of work has been done on this, and it's definitely Zelda wikia appropriate.KrytenKoro 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this completely unencycolpedic crap with extreme prejudice. Piperdown 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete based on WP:FICT. WP:FICT gives notability to major characters, but not to every place on the map in a video game. I think this is almost to a game guide level, which violates WP:NOT Corpx 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; OoT is a very influential game, so I think this article is appropriate; however, it is too guide-ish at the moment, some things need revising and cutting down. I may start working on this, if I get round to it. Haipa Doragon 11:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The necessary cleanup would make this far too short, because most of this is unsourceable and not that encyclopedic. But definitely make sure to transwiki, if there isn't something like this over on Wikia. -Amarkov moo! 20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about whether this is deleted, but please redirect this (and all redirects) to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time if the consensus is to delete or merge. I'd rather we not lose all these redirects. --- RockMFR 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect? Do you expect someone to actually type in "Places in the Legend of..." into wikipedia? Piperdown 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah? Since people visited this page beforehand?KrytenKoro 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're trying to say, but I'd expect that this page was found if at all by readers clicking on a link to it (assuming that link exists there) on the main page concerning this video game. So...are you yet another wikipedian who thinks there's nothing wrong with people creating articles that are 100% original research, its contents in no way verified with reliable sources as wikipedia defines them? Piperdown 23:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what he was saying that since people already knew it existed, if they wanted to go there, they would just type it into the search. Secondly, he already voted weak delete, so keep your accusatory personal attacks to yourself. DurinsBane87 23:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "accusatory personal attacks" would that be? I've done no such thing so stop the false accusations of me personally attacking anyone. How do you feel about WP:OR? I'm asking. It wasn't a snide question. It's a real one. I'm shocked at how many people commenting on AFD's have no idea that Original Research is not allowed on wikipedia, and most of these articles would have no content without OR. Piperdown 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So...are you yet another wikipedian who thinks there's nothing wrong with people creating articles that are 100% original research, its contents in no way verified with reliable sources as wikipedia defines them?" is accusatory, and as for my stance, I was the person who nominated this for AfD, along with the "places in..Twilight princess." DurinsBane87 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vouching for myself, most of my edits are aimed at trying to remove OR, speculation, and that whole deal. I in fact did a lot of work on this page trying to remove all the nonsense that had been built into it.KrytenKoro 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- How about we do the logical thing? Delete the article if consensus is to delete, and if someone wants to create a redirect, we can discuss if that should be deleted later. -Amarkov moo! 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; however, if anyone wants to transwiki this, let me know and appropriate measures will be taken. — Deckill er 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess[edit]

Large page filled with mostly non-notable locations from a single game with very little if any sourcing. DurinsBane87 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - while I can agree with the rationale, we need to make absolutely sure that we transwiki this - a lot of work has been done on this, and it's definitely Zelda wikia appropriate.KrytenKoro 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable locations, and a substantial amount of effort does not make an article any more notable. --Scottie_theNerd 09:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what the Zelda wikia is? It's the wiki where they have pages on even minor enemies. This article is perfect for that wiki, and I should think that moving the info to some place it's perfect for would be preferable to deleting it outright.KrytenKoro 14:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability clearly established, spam problems not present (at least not now). Please note this is a nonadmin closure. The Evil Spartan 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gather (website)[edit]

Article was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding a minimal assertion of notability. Still, Delete given grave sourcing and notability concerns. Xoloz 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Provides absolutely no reliable sources to verify it's peacock claims. DarkSaber2k 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spam -- Magioladitis 16:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability through media mentions Corpx 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources provided to support the (conclusory) claim of notability. NawlinWiki 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Keep, thanks, Dhartung. NawlinWiki 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been cleaned up and sourced. Silly voters, google is only one click away. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as Dhartung found --and anyone could have easily found -- Business Week, WSJ, DJ Market Watch--all three primarily about this website. DGG (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bytheria[edit]

Delete - Upon reviewing the page briefly, it looks like a joke/hoax. A web search on the name turns up no real web pages on the topic. It might be a candidate for speedy deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a hoax. My catch [20] but well done Dr; the hungriest piranha gets the hot dog! Johnbod 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calactydacus plant. Dr. Submillimeter 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long and detailed nonsense, but still nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More evidence for it being a hoax: they have tens of thousands of hoplites, sent out by a unified Greek state, coming in the second century — this wouldn't work very well with the political situation in Greece at this time. Somebody should write a novel about this place; such a book could be quite entertaining. Nyttend 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reeks of fiction, and there are no references outside of myspace.com and Wikipedia mirrors. How has this survived in Wikipedia for five months? ●DanMS • Talk 00:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mindless hoax. What kind of spacker has time to write such crap. Bigdaddy1981 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Oakshade 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. (2300 year old wax tablets?)(Athenian senators?)(Greece conducting large forweign wars that aren't in the history books during the second century BC?) Cardamon 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Dan Gluck 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Hourcast. NawlinWiki 17:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze (song)[edit]

Non-notable single released by a band of questionable notability. Precious Roy 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I've already done the "merge" with Hourcast, and I would recommend a redirect in that direction. If the band is not notable, please send the band to AFD. Shalom ^Hello 15:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability -- Magioladitis 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BYU 100 Hour Board[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present, corroborated by mainstream press sources listed at the DRV. Still, weak delete, for notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Campus organizations are not notable Corpx 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I generally agree, but affiliation with an academic institution does not render an organization not noteworthy per se. For example, U. Penn's Language Log, Cornell's Legal Information Institute, U. Buffalo/Syracuse library catalog list Autocat, or U. of Waikato's NZNOG for New Zealand ISP's. In each of those cases, the organization is noteworthy because its influence outside the university. Likewise, only 11% of the 100 Hour Board readership attends BYU, and 73% of unique views to the website originate outside of Utah. Most readers and many writers for the 100 Hour Board are not BYU students. See the open letter referenced in Speedy delete review. Peter 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not see any mainstream press sources at the DRV. BYU-related sources don't count as evidence of notability. I could not find the "mention" alleged in the local paper, either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is at least one independent source in The Daily Herald, a small newspaper unaffiliated with BYU. Unfortunately, that publication's online archives do not go back to 2000, the date of the article, so I cannot link to it. I also realize that a single print reference is probably insufficient evidence of notability, but the article does exist. If I manage to find an online copy I will post it later. Peter 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you. The problem is that if the Daily Herald only mentions the board rather than discussing it, it does not provide a source that can be used to write the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article covered two or three websites, explaining what they were about. One was the 100 Hour Board. It's not the strongest coverage, but it did cover Board rather than merely cite to it. Peter 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete campus organizations are generally not notable and I see no exception for this one; plenty of campuses and campus groups have a help group, speakers bureau, whatever that have gotten some local attention; doesn't make the notable. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that campus organizations are not generally notable; however, see comment above regarding other notable organizations affiliated with universities. I'm not entirely convinced the 100 Hour Board meets the burden of proof, but it should be noted that its sphere of influence is considerable greater than "local attention." Peter 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, if unwillingly. I think the case can be made that the 100 Hour Board is notable. It seems like a BYU-based answer to the Internet Oracle. It has an international readership that stretches beyond the BYU campus. The problem is verifiability: even in the open letter, there are no independent reliable sources provided. Quoting the article: "In 2006, the 100 Hour Board began talks with BYU NewsNet, the university's news organization. The mission and goals of these two organizations were more in harmony, so the 100 Hour Board moved again to its present home [on NewsNet]. The Daily Universe, the BYU student newspaper, also began a regular column on its opinion page with select questions and answers from the 100 Hour Board." Neither BYU NewsNet or the Daily Universe are indepedent of the 100 Hour Board, and as a result, the articles there must be disqualified when considering the coverage for notability purposes. That said, my vote will swing to a keep if sources outside of the BYU news service can be found. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any independant reliable sources? Only stuff from BYU itself... --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear verifiability concerns and lack of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources independent of the school itself. Heather 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note change of position below)- Let me preface my rationale with the disclosure that I was a contributor to the article. I also agree that the 100 Hour Board is not unquestionably notable -- I think it is a close case. However, I support keeping it. My reasons for voting "keep" are below; supporting evidence may be found in the open letter from the Speedy Delete review.
- The 100 Hour Board is often cited by Internet sources, including Wikipedia itself. The Wikipedia article served a useful function to inform readers about the context, validity, and possible biases of the Board as a source.
- While its original affiliation with BYU was a close relationship, the Board has existed largely independently for several years. The content of the forum still includes campus-related topics, but both readership and content are increasingly divorced from BYU. Thus, the alternative of including a section about the 100 Hour Board in the general BYU article may be less logical than maintaining a separate article.
- The 100 Hour Board is extremely unusual in its role as an open forum at an authoritative religious institution. Consequently, it is one of the few sources of open discussion of topics related to BYU or the Mormon Church. The Board is frequently cited as a source in other Internet fora that discuss Mormonism. I think this unique role contributes to the Board's notability. Peter 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability guidelines say "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As far as I can see, there's just 1 media mention in there and its a trivial mention, adding no notability to the topic. Corpx 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nothing you just said establishes notability. Your first bulletin is rather odd, trying to establish notability by referencing it's own wikipedia article? *shakes head* --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being more clear. I would also support delete if that were the case. The Wikipedia articles I referred to are different from the Board's own article. Here are two such examples. Additionally, a quick web search pulled up citations from or articles about the 100 Hour Board on Boxxet.com, Technometria, Mecworks, QDnow, and Provo Pulse. And for what it's worth, the 100 Hour Board now shows up as a source on Google News Alerts. While not constituting notability per se, I think those references are at least evidence of notability. Peter 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs dont count as reliable sources. WP:RS explains what makes a reliable source. Corpx 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)These are all arguments that the board should be notable, rather than arguments that it actually is notable. We're looking for evidence that other people have considered the board a subject that they need to cover before determining it needs to be covered in WP. At a very minimum, notability means that some newspaper or magazine editor at a publication outside of BYU has decided that xe needs to expend resources covering the board or that some publisher has decided it needs to spend money publishing a book about it. In short, we don't determine what is notable, we let other people do that for us. That way, we don't need to make subjective judgments about what is "worthy" of coverage and praise/insult you, your girlfriend, your mother, your mother's dog, etc. If you (I noticed that the author of the open letter to Wikipedia on the board's website was signed by Forpeterssake) can get those other people to give your organization coverage, more power to you and I'm sure an uninvolved editor will write an article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid criticisms. I agree that the functional arguments I presented above are alone insufficient to merit notability. I thought the Speedy Delete was a procedural violation, which is why I originally contested it, but I'm perfectly satisfied if the article doesn't meet AfD criteria. My zeal in opposing the Speedy Delete hasn't blinded me from the fact that there are few outside sources. In fact, I may change my mind on the "keep" vote. I just don't want the article deleted solely because "all campus organizations are not noteworthy" or "it's only cited in its own Wikipedia article." In the case of campus affiliation, I think that is an imprecise and faulty criterion for deletion. In the case of citing the Wikipedia article, I wanted to point out that there were additional citations. The third-party sources I have been able to find are probably insufficient, but I at least wanted to add them to the evaluation. Peter 18:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter's well put and thorough argument. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean an argument that doesn't establish any reliable 3rd party sources?, and tries to cite it's own wikipedia article for notability? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable student website, no evidence that anybody uninvolved is actually interested, no reliable independent sources, and God alone knows why we undeleted it to bring it here. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Process, my friend. Process. -Peter 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, does not pass inclusion guidelines for notability. Does seem a little silly to have DRV'd this only to delete it once more, but I guess them's the breaks. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Position change - I did some searches on Lexis for articles on the 100 Hour Board and only turned up the same articles I already referrenced. At this point I don't expect to find any other major coverage, so the burden of proof probably isn't met. I think the Wikipedia policy on notability is overly narrow, but that is irrelant in the current discussion. Though I would like to see the article maintained, I must conclude that it doesn't meet the current criteria for notability. I stringently maintain that the speedy delete was wholly innappropriate, and I don't regret contesting it. But I must regretfully reverse my vote from "keep" to "delete". As Arkyan says, them's the breaks. Unless someone else comes forward with some third-party sources, this AfD can probably wrap up. -Peter 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should ~~strike out~~ your earlier position then. Corpx 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policijska stanica[edit]

Non-notable film series. As far as I can tell [21], there is only VHS/DVD edition of this B-production series of comedies (i.e. it wasn't even in the cinema). The articles contain mostly the plots and character descriptions; Wikipedia ≠ IMDB ≠ YouTube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any serious reviews, no reliable sources, thus... no articles. Duja► 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following articles, from the same walled garden:

Policijska stanica 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Policijska stanica 4: Dom sindikata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jugovizija 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kursadžije (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the characters:

Ludi Milojko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ajdemi Popuši (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dimče Seksovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Đuro Palica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Duja► 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, contingent on improvement. --Milton 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I asked the creator to reference several of these on 13 June, with no reply or action. There are no IMDB /AMG listings or any other good references for any of the above. Violates WP:RS w/ notability concerns. SkierRMH 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gnan garra 12:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Milton, also contingent on improvement. In the meantime, however, I see nothing wrong with this article, aside from being a stub. --Slugmaster 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that it after 14 days there are still no references given and they're all still in violation of WP:RS. SkierRMH 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 09:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a stock-standard no consensus result for whether Caddell is notable or not. Daniel 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Caddell[edit]

Non-notable individual Leeannedy 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a lawyer who held some positions with the state bar. That might be good enough for a dictionary of Alabama biography, but it is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He was president of the state bar association; I do not know if this is enough--i think further notability might depend on the importance of the work he did, and I can not actually tell about his practice from the article--it just talks about the externals. But to nom as nn, and not say more, or to say "just a lawyer who held some positions with the state bar" does not take serious account of the actual article. DGG 07:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per DGG. Bearian 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a prominant lawyer for sure, but not notable enough for Wikipedia listing. Irishjp 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, president of a state bar is not a particularly notable position; no other claim of notability. NawlinWiki 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delete - Tried to get think of a case for notability based on the totality of the biography but not sure I can justify. Two years as state bar president. Lots of those around. State-level party functionary. Lots of those as well Head of a small bank that was eventually acquired by a big bank. Doesn't seem to have anything that can push it over the top in my mind. Montco 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 years as bar association president. In a career span of say 50 years, that makes him one of the 25 most prominent lawyers in the state. There are a lot of lawyers in alabama, so clearly much more notable than they average. DGG (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, for the reasons given by DGG. It is a well-written and sourced article to a notable person from Alabama involved in politics and the law. Callelinea 22:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See Decatur Daily article and Alabama Academy of Honor page — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stehr[edit]

This article was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding that a claim of notability was asserted. However, as the article currently lacks sources, it fails WP:V. Delete, pending sources and other opinions. Xoloz 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the first time I've seen Xoloz forward an article from DRV with any opinion other that "abstain", and I can see why. There's no explanation of why this fellow is any more significant than other practitioners of his high-profile profession. Shalom ^Hello 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed that you noticed. :) However, for the record, I've stopped abstaining at the insistence of several process "wonks" who insist that every AfD must begin with a request for deletion. I continue to believe, personally, that abstentions are both valid and wise, but I've grown tired of arguing the point. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then in some professional niche--not necessarily this one-- where every member received press coverage, you still would not consider most of them notable? DGG (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fixed it up a little and added a source. Callelinea 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a resume. Must establish notoriety in an area larger than Indianapolis, Indiana. ShoesssS ^Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Lebowski in popular culture[edit]

As much as I love the idea of two separate drinking games inspired by this film, this article is a directory of entries only loosely associated by the passing mention of The Big Lebowski. It is unsourced trivia, lacking secondary sources to establish its notability. It looks like it was moved from the main article, but really it should just be removed for lack of encyclopedic value. María (críticame) 14:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —María (críticame) 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —María (críticame) 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's argument. Completely unsourced article pieced together by editors' firsthand observations, not to mention that the entries are not notable as a result of mentioning The Big Lebowski in passing or in some context. It's just trivia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Love the movie, hate Orig Research non-sense. Piperdown 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemable. Casperonline 18:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails per WP:V.--JForget 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A movie is popular culture, so any other reference to it in popular culture is meaningless. Calgary 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Though the film was entertaining. Bulldog123 02:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does anybody even try fixing articles before nominating them anymore? Why not try to find sources? Another example of an acceptable article topic that seems to have been hijacked by trivia lovers. --Hemlock Martinis 08:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely endorse this statement. A W 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hemlock Martinis. A W 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ineedhits[edit]

Procedural nomination out of my continued efforts to clean up Australian corpcruft. Article previously the subject of an AfD which was closed on 7 July 2005 as no consensus. Article fails WP:CORP entirely, and had it not been the fact it had previously gone no consensus at AfD I would have marked the article as CSD A7/G11 and been done with it. The article clearly is for a non-notable local company written solely for the purpose of self-promotion, and has all the hallmarks of WP:VSCA. Additionally, the previous nomination noted potential WP:COI issues arising from the user who has significantly contributed to the article (User:ClayCook) being an employee or directly connected with the article's subject. Clay Cook according to the article is the founder of the company, and the has made few edits to WP outside this article and relevant topics (Has not edited since 2 July 2005). The article lacks WP:RS to back up any of the information included within. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the site asserts awards but --as far as I can see-- does not list them; a seo is not easy to search for, and I've so far found no awards. Possible keep if there is some documentation available.DGG 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. No reliable and independent secondary sources, therefore not notable. Assize 11:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Recurring dreams 23:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense, cut and paste of Game Boy Advance Video. NawlinWiki 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Video[edit]

Complete hoax. Most of the article is clumsily-edited copy-paste from Game Boy Advance Video. Google returns no relevant results for "Wii Video Disc", and the article is littered with glaring factual inaccuracies. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G1, patent nonsense. Quoting from the "History" section:

Wii video discs became available in North America in October 2007. In November 2007, Nintendo had expanded its Wii video categories. In January 2008, Majesco started to sell Wii video discs featuring Disney Channel animated series like: The Buzz on Maggie, American Dragon: Jake Long, Kim Possible, and Hannah Montana. Then in February 2008, Nintendo started to sell Wii video discs with full length movies like Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles. A special Wii video features the movies Toy Story and The Incredibles combined in one disc, this disc costs US$29.99 as of April 2008. As of April 2008, the retail price of original Wii video discs lowered to US$9.95.

I have nothing to add. Shalom ^Hello 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete given the WP:RS concerns raised here. Nothing given that shows notability per WP:WEB. --Core desat 06:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic Prairie Dog[edit]

Non-notable online video. Current Alexa rank 355,001; best one between 30.000 and 40.000 - the graph of its rank and traffic seems to indicate that it's just a temporary fad [22]. Delete, with a brief mention at internet meme at best. - Mike Rosoft 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability Corpx 17:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nonsense. I don't even understand the popularity of this stupid video. It certainly isn't notable. Corvus cornix 20:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and wait for reliable sources to catch up. I think this may become notable, i.e. achieve significant coverage in reliable sources, in a few months, similar to craze over the Numa Numa dance/video, but notability in the future, even if likely, is not notability now. Has a massive web presence: 400,000+ web hits under correct name, and over 2 million under more popular misnomer, "dramatic chipmunk". Alexa rank doesn't tell the story at all because its main agar dishes are youtube and collegehumor, not the eponymous website. I was emailed the link a few days ago and personally find it hysterical—especially the Kill Bill and Darth Vader takeoffs. Some minor news hits for both names [23] but some of them are blogs and none appear to provide significant coverage.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I'm a stickler for wikipedia format, and i can see this as questionable, but the meme is HUGE, and i came to wikipedia several times, hoping to find information about it. I had to finally find out where it came from (japanese tv) by other means. There are compelling arguments to be made for deletion, so maybe just a redirect to "internet meme," but i think the redirect should go to specific mention of this meme, so that the encyclopedia is still useful.Youdontsmellbad 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to some of the places you found out about this ? Corpx 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no REAL references, and is irrelevant. If you want to make it relevant, how about you get some info on whoever created this clip, the original clip from Japanese television, and so on. We need more info if you really want to keep it. Until then, delete this article. --Conman33 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete --200.104.124.16 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote! Corpx 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP isn't a repository for passing fads. Barryap 01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This video is everywhere. It was on Best Week Ever, it's got tons of views and remixes. Companies sell items with the "chipmunk"'s likeness on them. This is easily popular enough to warrant an article.►Chris Nelson 08:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTE, a topic should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources" for it to be notable. One "coverage item" doesnt imply significant coverage and I have my doubts on the using Best Week Ever as a reliable source Corpx 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're wrong about that last part. So at least that's out of the way.►Chris Nelson 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, because I recall seeing this making national news on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC this month in I believe the "Oddball" segment. It has had enough still ongoing references to make an article useful for anyone wanting to see what it was all about, and again, made at least national news and what with the internet has probably and even larger influence internationally. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but "I recall, I believe" is not a valid reference. Corvus cornix 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - empty, nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 14:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dapad[edit]

Hoax, not a single Google hit for the term "dapad" meaning a skin irritation, a double-check of medical dictionaries shows no mention of the term or anything like it, the term "tablelanditis" mentioned in the article (with zero google hits of any kind) screams of WP:NFT or other non-notable neologism. Without some serious verification this article needs to go. Wingsandsword 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. Blatant hoax. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD (Fairy chess piece)[edit]

This article is about a piece used in a variant of chess called Chess with different armies; it consists of a definition, and an explanation of how the piece can move in the game. It's described as a "bede" in the CWDA article. No references are given, no notability is asserted. Prod in April was removed without comment, by the page's creator, who is also the only significant contributor to the article. It's one of only two articles in Category:Fairy chess pieces (I think there used to be more, but they were deleted); the other article is the main one, Fairy chess piece, which says there are more than 1200 fairy chess pieces. A redirect doesn't seem appropriate since there are no significant internal links to the article and it seems an unlikely search term (especially since it's spelled differently from the CWDA article). Propaniac 12:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, there's an infinite number of fairy chess pieces, and none of them are notable enough for an individual article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I dont see the notability in a custom chess piece Corpx 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all the above, just one of the many, not enough to warrant an article. Perhaps a redirect? Voorlandt 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survival (film)[edit]

Although interesting, this article does not include reliable independent sources or any other hint at why this film would be notable. I would nominate for speedy deletion, but there's already a contested prod in the history so we should give this a full debate. The Storm Surfer 12:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the full debate says ... Delete, fails WP:V, WP:NN, WP:SPAM. The article (and the IMDB entry) claims that this movie is known as "The eBay Movie," but a Google search of "The eBay Movie" + "Survival" turns up just the Wikipedia article as the lone hit. According to the IMDB profile, this flick was released only a month ago; looks like a blatant publicity snatch. RGTraynor 13:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The method of its financing is slightly notable, but it went direct to DVD. If it had been released into theaters, I would have supported keeping it. As it is, delete. Corvus cornix 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I removed the prod for this film, simply because I thought it merited a full AfD. I don't have any leaning one way or the other. Chubbles 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a NOBRAINER. I concur that it violates WP:V, WP:NN, WP:SPAM. It's a completely unsourced article. No source about "The eBay Movie,". No outside sources to back up other claims about the history of this film. Just myspace pages and blogs. If wiki allows this article to stay, then it sets a BAD example. Anyone could, theoritically, post a wikipage about their homevideos or other amateur arm-chair projects. What's next? A wiki page about the model jet I build sitting on my desk? Of course not.
Keep. It's a real movie with a real release. It's far from a home video and that's an insult to ANYONE who independently makes movies. Wikipedia should be far more supportive of such independent work, especially since this is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so long as it's factual. Deleting this doesn't provide any example other than Wiki being against independent projects.
Extremely Offended. I was the Director of Photography on this film as well as one of the producers, and the fact that some fool had the ignorance to come onto the page I created and delete simply because it didn't meet their standards astounds me. I think it is a sad day in the independent film community when some sour people decide they don't care for an article to be here because it doesn't have enough sourcing. The only reason we didn't have more sources is because we had to take down the official site right now due to financial hardship. Anyone who wants to call this a home movie, I think you should stand in front of the 16 cast members, 12 crew members and the 44 executive producers who sank money into making this film happen, I think that in itself speaks on how far from a "home video" it was. We all sank a straight week of 12-14 hour days into this film, as well as months of pre-production and six months of editing, and I felt it was MORE than warranted that we be able to place an article about this film on Wikipedia. The only reason it wasn't furthered established as an article is because I have a limited knowledge of how to use this site, and I was still in the process of learning. But forget it now. What's the point when this site is clearly full of people who have nothing but hate towards any kind of film that wasn't produced on a Hollywood budget. All I can say is that if this film could pass through the administrators at imdb for approval to create a profile, wikipedia should have been cake. But I guess this is what happens when people who had NO hand and in this production are allowed to edit an article without any care in the world. Iateyourpetfish 16:24, 14 July 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 someone wants to convert it into a category, I'll provide the list. If someone wants to make this list better, what was there at the moment isn't going to be of much help, sadly. Daniel 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan mythology[edit]

I stumbled on this page, which is basically a list of articles dealing with some elements of Cretan mythology. I then created the Category and attempted to move the information (I felt it was better suited as a category). I then discovered that most of the items in this list are more related to general Greek mythology. Thus, I feel as though this article has no real use, and should at the least be scrapped and rewritten as a substantial description of Cretan myth. CaveatLector^Talk 11:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, and entirely without prejudice to re-creation. This list essentially collects Greek myths that have to do with Crete. There is a fairly large body of commentary on the differences between Cretan/Minoan and classical Greek mythology, and an even larger of imaginative or speculative mythography, starting with Arthur Evans forward. Not sure how helpful this list would be to anyone wishing to create that article, though. FWIW, Minoan religion currently redirects to a page that has no information about Minoan religion on it. We also have Snake Goddess, that requires substantial NPOV revision; many of the alleged snake goddess figurines have been exposed as forgeries. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smerdis has it right: if someone wants to write an article on what's unique about Cretan mythology, please do (but be very careful in selecting sources for anything Minoan); but this list isn't useful. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest to keep the list but rename the page a "List" somewhere in the title -- I beleive list articles can be useful, for example to later create "navigational menus" with. Goldenrowley 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreate in a better article format I think this article should be deleted and recreated as an article discussing Cretan mythology instead of listing articles related to it. Captain panda 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just rewrite since nobody is presently working on the page, just add the material you think should be there; if you don't want to keep the list in the article create a category.DGG[User talk:DGG|talk 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to "List of Greek mythology topics related to Crete". --Lambiam ^Talk 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Postscript. Alternatively, a category "Greek mythology topics related to Crete" (as suggested by DGG) will work. 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more like fancruft for the grand isle. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. The arguments by the anonymous IPs are welcome, but don't do anything for the established notability criteria. --Core desat 06:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nabila Jamshed[edit]

Fails WP:BIO - only one reference by a secondary source; coverage not sufficient to establish notability; book is only available within a limited number of bookstores in India (apparently three, only in New Delhi), not available online. Note that this AFD also covers her book. WLU 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No listing on Amazon for author, article fails to assert notability. Also, articles creator user name is an acronym of Wish Upon A Time (the book above) so looks like WP:COIPedro | Chat 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No evidence that author or book meets the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Although Amazon listings are irrelevant in this matter - even if there were no copies in existence outside of India, were it notable in India it would pass WP:N - I don't see that it is notable in India. Being for sale in three local bookstores is not notable. --Charlene 12:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert the subjects notability (no awards, press coverages, etc.) and lacks any references or sources to back up the article. Ozgod 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Notability is not established. Per WP:BK we would like to see that The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. It is conceivable this book could become a runaway success, and get widespread attention in the press, in which case we might re-evaluate, and the article could be re-created. Not much time has passed since the release of the book in late June. A complaint was filed at WT:AN about someone tampering with the comments of other editors in this AfD. WLU has restored the original comments. EdJohnston 16:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD templates were removed on both pages earlier today by an anon IP out of India. Reverted. WLU

Separate section for extra-long comment[edit]

KEEP1. The Issue of Distribution - 50 copies were sold within a few hours of the launch. The book is in the process of being distributed, and this is the reason it is available in limited locations. The locations mentioned in the official blogs, for those who may be less informed, are markets, not stores, that stored the book till the date of that post. The current information suggests the book is available to everybody in Delhi and beyond.

P.S. Eragon, a literary success, was not distributed even across the United States bookstores for nearly a year because Paolini had the book printed, not published. Wikipedia would be naive to let that pass for not complying with rules.

2. Media Attention - Please review the recent chnages to the article. You will find that media coverage is extensive and ongoing. Evidence of all cannot be provided, because, you will no doubt be surprised to learn, everything is Not available on the internet.

3. Online Stores - Availibility in online stores does not suggest notability of the published work. Not all notable work is available on Amazon.. and everyone is at liberty to put up any irrelevant and insignificant material for sale on it.

4. TWUAT - he acronym WUAT could also mean the creator of the article is a fan.

5. Notability of the author - The author is a nineteen year old girl. That by itself is notable for a country that has rarely, if ever, seen published teenage writers. Please also see Nabila Jamshed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.167.192 (talk • contribs)

I removed the extra bold formatting added by the anonymous contributor 122.162.167.192 (talk · contribs). By tradition, in Articles for Deletion debates, only the actual votes (Keep, Delete, etc.) are put in bold. There is a bot that counts the votes which depends on the bold formatting being in the right place. Please note that, if you want Wikipedia to maintain an article on you, it helps to be somewhat respectful of our processes. Violating our policies (as in the comment-tampering noted above) is not a smart way to begin. EdJohnston 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 copies is hardly a sufficient number to assure notability, and irrespective this would need to be documented in a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable sources.
The book and author's bio page are two different things, though currently both are being reviewed in this AFD. The addition of a single extra source does increase it's chances of remaining (note to those who have already voted - there is a new source on both pages here) - more sources like this would definitely increase all articles chances of surviving AFD, though currently I'm not changing my vote.
Correct, on-line availability does not establish notability, reliable sources do. However, unlike amazon, wikipedia has policies to ensure that people are not "...at liberty to put up any irrelevant and insignificant material."
WUAT could mean, but it suggests COI - lacking proof, no action is taken but Wuat should be aware of our policies on the matter
Notability is established by multiple reliable sources, not novelty - read the policies people are citing as relevant (WP:BIO, WP:BOOK, WP:AFD, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:TALK) as THAT determines if the article is deleted, not freakshow, gee-whiz, feel-good or wunderkind potential. This applies to Christopher Paolini - his notability was established by multiple sources documenting his success, not by writing an enormous and terrible Eragon at a young age. And what rules are being referred to? The Nabila Jamshed page is what we are discussing on this AFD, the book is piggy-backing on the AFD because both have the same problems. WLU 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Firstly, everybody, 50 copies within a few gours of the launch is quite remarkable for a debut novel. How can any evidence be provided if there is none availible online?

Secondly, please view the references section, a few more have been added. Since the novel has only just been launch 13 days ago, not all the reviews etc have come in yet, neither has the data for sales. They will be put up whenever they are published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.50.188 (talk • contribs)

50 copies in a few hours is hardly remarkable. References to print media are acceptable, which you would know if you had read WP:RS as has been suggested several times.

I looked over the references, my comments can be found on the talk pages. Several were duplicates of the same coverage, I still don't think the article should stay on wikipedia. Note that if more references can be found, or if the book receives more attention after it is deleted, the page can be re-created (though you would do well to re-create it on a sub-page and ask some of the reveiwers or an admin for their opinion on if it meets WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY, otherwise it will be deleted again). WLU 11:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By Indian publishing standards, the sale of 60 copies on the launch date is considered a bestseller. Therefore, 50 copies is remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.20.179 (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 redirect to South West Trains. Content wasn't deleted, and is still viewable in history. Daniel 05:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Western (rail franchise)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/South Western (rail franchise) (2nd nomination)

This article contains no new information, as it hasn't been edited since February. All the information in it has already been merged into the appropriate pages at South West Trains and Island Line, Isle of Wight. The page cannot be redirected becuase it concerns both the pages mentioned. (This page has been nominated for deletion before under another name, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Western) --Jorvik 10:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South West Trains. While the franchise does cover both SWT and Island Line, South West Trains is clearly the most important of the two, so a redirect to that article makes sense. --RFBailey 11:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A page being out-of-date isn't a reason for deletion in itself--why not update it, or at least correct the tenses? --RFBailey 11:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SWT as with the recent re-franchising this is how we have handled the similar West Midlands franchise article and the new London Midland TOC. In this case the incumbent TOC has continued using the same brand, with the Island line continuing as a sub brand (AFAIK) (and the article on the island line still deals with the physical line and historical TOC). Pickle 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Hamberg[edit]

Prod was contested and only the slightest of improvements was made. I am not a sports fan and writing 101 fits in perfectly here: Soccer fans may know if this guy is notable or not but assuming he is, no one has clued me in based on what is written in the article. The article has been around for a while and it hasn't been significantly improved. Someone said they would but there are hundreds if not thousands of wiki articles where people say that and never do what they say, so I am skeptical. Even so, as written, the article doesn't indicate why this guy is notable. I don't know if he is Europe's version of Pele or if he was a benchwarmer or something in between. Where are stats, honors, etc.? Better yet, where are links from other articles, such as lists of members on teams he was a member of or some such thing? Postcard Cathy 11:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look on Playerhistory. Clearly notable. Mattythewhite 11:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mattythewhite, although needs expanding. ArtVandelay13 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep - clearly a lot of work needs to be put into the article to bring it up to scratch but the fact that it is only a stub is not grounds for deletion. Although he has several mentions on the Dutch WP [24] there is no article about him there which could be translated into English. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All Ajax players are automatically notable. Johnbod 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost certainly was a pro player if he played for Ajax. Number 5 7 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matty's source showing that he played at the full professional level. NawlinWiki 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Played for a club that has won four European championships and is a coach at a club that has won five European championships. Casperonline 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Absolutely notable per above. I will see and try to expand the article soon. Knurftendans 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is expanded now, Knurftendans 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad-faith unexplained nom by anon IP. NawlinWiki 17:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro sit-ins[edit]

Procedural completion of incomplete AfD nomination by anonymous editor who failed to provide a rationale. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A no-brainer speedy keep - a long established page about a clearly notable civil rights group. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The AfD nomination is unexplained and it would be tiresome to let this AfD continue much longer. - Richard Cavell 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mali at the 2006 Winter Olympics[edit]

There was an article exactly the same as this but was about Ghana (only difference, obviously, was that Ghana was substituted for Mali) and my prod was successful. The person that contested this prod made no comment as to why they contested it and made no improvement to the article. My thinking is that it is not necessary to have an article saying Mali didn't participate. One only need look at the article on that Olympics and see who participated to figure out who didn't participate. I would imagine that there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 countries that didn't participate - maybe more, maybe less but the idea is that there are MANY countries that didn't participate - as well as in other Olympic Games. If we had individual articles for every country that didn't participate, well, it would just be ridiculous and a waste of time and space. Postcard Cathy 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that the non-participation was notable. cab 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete we don't need an article to say x country didn't particpate at x games! Lugnuts 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per cab, the "article" in its current form couldn't be more useless. Punkmorten 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postcard and Lugnuts. Here I was, expecting a Cool Runnings type story (Jamaican bobsled team in '88) and I get something on the lines of List of Protestant Popes. Mandsford 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per everyone, and per Mandsford's point as well. We do not need articles on what did not happen. --Charlene 12:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not need articles on what did not happen. Are you sure?! What about List of Wikipedians who didn't do any edits on the 15th July 2003? ;) Lugnuts 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer List of Wikipedians who are not going to the Calgary Stampede Parade, myself. --Charlene 12:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - More pertinent would be List of Wikipedians who think they're going to get some sort of award from Jimbo for creating the greatest number of completely pointless and meritless articles. RGTraynor 14:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- omigod, does that mean I missed the end of the world!? BigNate37_(T) 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. Number 5 7 15:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although with a complete collection of articles on which countries did not participate in each of the modern olympics we may get our 2 millionth article faster and one that no one will want to vandalize. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure Centre's in South West Wales[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of leisure centres. This is basically a list of leisure centres with no encyclopedic purpose. MartinDK 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Perhaps also point creating editor at Template:User_Apostrophe_Abuse? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: There are MANY other articles like this about other Leisure Centres in Australia. In fact, if you look, there is even a category for them. I say if you delete this, you should delete every other leisure centre for the same reason and then delete the category.Postcard Cathy 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly even an article. It's a list of leisure centres complete with phone numbers and spam links. I was actually being very nice in my nomination since I believe this to be pure spam. MartinDK 10:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, start going through all the articles in the category since I have seen many of them and they are all written the same way. So, be consistent and try to get them all removed for the same reasons. Postcard Cathy 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom says all that needs to be said: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. If there are other articles like this, I'm sure their time will come. By the way, Postcard Cathy, I think you're confusing Southwest Wales with New South Wales (else what does Australia have to do with this?). Deor 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; these should be at most mentioned in the culture/sports section of each town's article. Number 5 7 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC) PS South West Wales is in Wales not Australia![reply]
Weak keep A number of such centres with individual articles were nominated for PROD & I think already removed; a frequent practice is to combine them into more comprehensive articles, & if the contact details section were removed this might be a reasonable article, especially if arranged geographically rather than alphabetically. I think the title would be centres, not centre's.'DGG, talk 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia is not a phone book. And they couldn't even be bothered to spell the title properly. Corvus cornix 21:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 05:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GridTrust[edit]

This article is about a project that will last for three years. Seems non notable, no references from reliable secondary sources. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for db-copyvio instead - seems to be a direct copy of http://www.cs.vu.nl/~crispo/project_index.html. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 10:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldnt see a copyvio (maybe it was already fixed); I have trimmed the lead paragraph to bare facts. John Vandenberg 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have included this page into wikipedia to complete the list of existing european projects already described in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FP6_Projects. So if the page of European projects is maintained in Wikipedia, then this page is useful. Thank you.
Delete. Non-notable, small-scale research project. May be notable once concluded or if its budget is extraordinarily large. There seems to be a lot of these research projects coming out of this "European Union’s Sixth Framework Programme, Information Society Technologies" program. johnpseudo 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promisance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard 08:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability, reposted deleted material, No reliable sources for verification, fails WP:WEB. DarkSaber2k 08:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of media mentions. Nothing has changed since last AFD. Maybe a SALT on that page is in order? Corpx 08:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Solo Concerto Competition[edit]

Non-notable school prize. Fredrick day 08:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable competitions. No google hits on a search either Corpx 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, now, right now. NawlinWiki 04:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Now Right Now[edit]

Does not even come close to meeting notability standards of WP:MUSIC The have only one self-released album, and that came out under a different name. Also, this has been deleted before, so I request that the closing admin WP:SALT it, should the consensus be "delete". Precious Roy 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for complete lack of notability. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 10:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE and I think WP:COI all apply.Pedro | Chat 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wauwatosa West High School[edit]

Non notable school. No famous alumni, nor anything else of special note. Unless we would like WP to turn into an indiscriminate collection of schools all over the world, it would seem this page does not add much to the encyclopedia. xC | ☎ 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with any high school. It is widely agreed that they are notable. Casperonline 18:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ILIKESCHOOLS is not a valid keep criterion. Provide something that makes this school notable, or get rid of it. Merge it into an article about the school district, if there is one. Corvus cornix 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll advocate keeping any high school article that has something significant to say--for this one, they have one minor academic award in 19992 and 1 athletic win in 1971. Clearly a lot of work to find them, but that's not enough. DGG (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier comment, now merged:The former principal dies of West Nile virus, but that doesnt make the school notable, & there is nothing else.DGG (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Award received and sports championships are claims of notability supported by appropriate sources. Article will benefit greatly from additional sources. Alansohn 05:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wait. Let me see if I have this right. In all the years of the school's existence, they have had one Presidential scholar, and two state championships in minor sports, and that's notability enough for you? Corvus cornix 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't wait. All of the claims of notability are supported by reliable and verifiable sources, in full satisfaction of the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Notability. Until such time as anyone can demonstrate a legal minimum number of accomplishments to claim notability, or perhaps an accomplishments per year ratio, then this school meets and surpasses requirements. Given the duration of the Presidential Scholars Program and the number of high schools in the state of Wisconsin, and with appropriate rounding, the expected number of honorees for this school is zero. I've been searching for additional material to add to the article. Any assistance that you could provide to meet your standards will be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 20:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is, in my opinion, like saying a person is notable because they own their own house and have a first-class honours degree. For an achievement to infer notability, it should really be, y'know, unusual. SamBC 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid justification for deletion. I think its great that you own your own house and have a degree, but I don't see any articles from reliable sources that support your claims or that demonstrate notability. All sources provided here are for distinct claims of notability, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Alansohn 22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 06:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least fold into an article combining details of similar or related schools. SamBC 13:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article establishes notability in athletics and academics and is well-sourced by reliable and independent secondary sources. -- DS1953 ^talk 03:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my view of school notability. No assertion of anything that exceeds run-of-the-mill functioning as a school. Eusebeus 10:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The usual endlessly rehashed arguments. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because all high schools are notable, as I argue User:Noroton/opinions, although User:Husond or some other closing admin may come along to again disenfranchise me. Noroton 02:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would love to argue it as a keep, but of the three references, only one is from an independent secondary source, and that reference only refers to the school tangentially. More secondary sources needed. Assize 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isolated news events or student accomplishments do not demonstrate notability of the school. Notability is best demonstrated by secondary sources providing coverage on the subject itself (the school). The provided sources do not do this. Find an independent source that talks about the school, and then use it to write an article on the school. --SmokeyJoe 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation plot summary[edit]

A plot summary violating WP:NOT#PLOT; the article should be deleted with some information merged into Degrassi: The Next Generation Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete plot summary, which violates WP:NOT and WP:FICT Corpx 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. What is it with all the plot summaries recently? --Haemo 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just plot, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Last Exile, which does not feature a plot summary (otherwise, the result would have been to delete). The redirect will be protected, while the information will be pasted to the main page (and expected to be trimmed significantly). — Deckill er 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Exile Plot[edit]

A plot summary where the article should be deleted with some information merged into Last Exile. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because it violates WP:NOT about plot summaries, as well as WP:FICT Corpx 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just plot, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I hate to see it go, if it violates policy then it must be deleted. Cpuwhiz11 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 70.51.10.130 05:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I hate to see it go - it is well written and a well written and not too lengthy summary of a complex plot of a >8hr series. Dr Aaron 10:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge But this shows the limits of the policy when it clashes with the need to split an article when it's too long. 81.247.167.164 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When an article becomes too long splitting is not always the best answer. Sometimes you just remove the information. Jay32183 19:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, merge or redirect. Please puruse merging and/or redirecting editorially to form consensus if you wish to attempt to do so. Daniel 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anal_leakage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anal leakage

Page purports to refer to an officially-recognized medical condition, but is in reality just a neologism. Google shows many hits, but not one from a professional medical source. A variety of medical claims are also made in the article, none of which are cited. Of the two references listed, one is an utterly unusable scatological humor website and the other is from an activist group (which itself uses the term in a neologistic, non-medical sense). Again, neither is written by a medical professional. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand [25]. Kappa 05:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge with fecal incontinence. Kappa 00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anal leakage is a symptom, not a condition. It can appear regardless of other symptoms of diarrhea or incontinence. Additionally it has a popular culture component due to its origins in the Olestra approval process. TIME (Note that govt. scientists agreed the symptom was not by itself a sign of diarrhea.) 170+ Google News Archive results --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill or redirect to fecal incontinence, since that's the actually recognized medical term. I'm well aware of the (ahem) "pop-culture impact" of the topic, but this is an encyclopedia, and that doesn't change the fact that it's not an officially recognized medical term (per the gold-standard, the ICD). Therefore, since the medical community didn't coin it, it has no official status as a symptom or a condition. If someone invents a new term and 500 people post it on their blogs, that doesn't make it legitimate or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia until (and unless) an appropriate authority in the field recognizes it. Otherwise, it's simply a neologism, no worse or better than any other term invented by pop-culture. Wikipedia doesn't do neologisms, much less ones that masquerade as real medical terminology and cite poopy websites as their source material... Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 09:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Wikipedia does do neologisms, if they are written about by reliable sources. And a neologism that's been around for ten years is not "newly coined". --Dhartung | Talk 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken as to how policy falls on this. WP:NEO is crystal-clear. Neologisms are to be avoided like the plague (the title of the policy-page provides a pretty good hint...), and are only acceptable if they are reliably sourced, unquestionably encyclopedic, and of definite benefit to the Project. This page is none of the above. It is a falsely attributed medical term with zero reliable references and a truly minimal benefit to the encyclopedia (if any). Basically, it's precisely the sort of page that WP:NEO was written for. Either squash it completely or merge it ito fecal incontinence, but leaving it as-is would be ridiculous. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:NEO is a guideline rather than a policy, and your attributed language "like the plague" is not, so far as I can tell, part of that guideline. It says Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Reliable sources, perhaps, is a classification which includes the 336 Google Scholar results on the term, or the 55 results from .gov domains including the NIH, CDC, and FDA (unless you assert that these are bodies outside the world of medicine). You seem to be under the impression the term was invented in pop culture, but its most famous use was derived from a medical study conducted by Frito-Lay, and it is found in the medical literature as early as 1956 (abstract). If we are simply to look at its prevalence as a notable term, we find it in 15 current Google News results and 177 historical results. At what point does a term become notable? According to WP:N, also a guideline, when two or more reliable sources write about it. By the standard of WP:N, then, it's clearly a notable term whether or not you consider it the "correct" one. In any case, we are Wikipedia, not Medipedia, and your efforts to turn us into the latter are not supported by any policy that I can see. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fecal incontinence, which covers its subject. Anthony Appleyard 10:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Anthony Appleyard. A "funny" article that pretends to be something more serious. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't redirect and rewrite to remove unscientific references to incontinence. If anal leakage was the same as "fecal incontinence" it would appear as that phrase on product inserts and boxed warnings for certain artificial fats, but the FDA created the term as an exact description. "Anal leakage" in the context of artificial fats (Olestra), and in medicines that prevent the adsorption of dietary fats (Xenical), is the fat leaking out the rectum, not fecal matter. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon, but this is precisely the problem; everyone and their uncle has heard of "anal leakage", and everybody's sure they read it off a box and heard it from a doctor...of course, nobody here has yet found a single authoritative medical source. I would request that you please produce some reliable evidence that the FDA (or any other medical authority) used or endorsed the term "anal leakage". Thus far, even the people who use the term (including the media) understand it's a clever neologism as opposed to a bona-fide medical term. If the President himself decided that "itch face" was a good new term for acne vulgaris, that wouldn't justify a pseudo-medical page on it any more than this should. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 19:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad TV, as it was one of its skits. 70.51.10.130 05:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note; it seems someone is making a concerted effort to improve the page. This is good, and a step in the right direction. However, I'd like to again point out that, as a medical condition, the references really ought to be either directly from a medical source or a reliable source which directly references a medical source. Part of WP:RS means not expecting laypeople (even otherwise good sources) to be able to independently opine on a subject that isn't in their ken. Example: Vogue magazine would probably be a poor source for an article on xenobiology. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 19:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited meet Wikipedia guidelines. The Washington Post and certainly a letter from Proctor and Gamble are sufficient to meet Wikipedia guidelines. There is no requirement that medical terms have to come "from a medical source", just multiple reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to fecal incontinence Jgassens 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Richard Arthur Norton, distinct enough term that it warrants a separate entry. (jarbarf) 03:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge at best this should be entered into the dictionary; as an article it is mundane and unworthy of note. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracies II[edit]

Video game that has only a year as a release date. Currently, its soundtrack is up for AFD. No sources, no info found. Going with a bad case of crystalballery here. Delete accordingly. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is "not much known" about the game except the speculation on that page Corpx 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more verifiable information is known Rackabello 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, stated reason for deletion is not a valid basis for deleting, subject is obviously notable. NawlinWiki 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Forouhar[edit]

The artcile has alot of false information on it which some users refuse to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goom (talk • contribs) 2007/07/04 18:35:10

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Subject is clearly notable and article sufficiently demonstrates notability with all the BBC sources. AfD is not for editing disputes on notable subjects. cab 10:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As linked in the article, the subject has substantial coverage therefore asserting her notability. Ozgod 13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (and speedy) keep The nom implies an edit war but no one has reverted any of his edits. Very hard for me to WP:AGF with this AfD. Precious Roy 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarFighter: Quadrant Wars[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide, cites no reliable sources which either support, or assert notability. Subject is a non-notable flash game. Contested prod. Haemo 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: I think this should be kept. We can try to ship things up to make it not Game Facish.Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the content in the article is sourced and most of it is not encyclopedic. Leebo ^T/C 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oyster guitarst 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because we can get it sourced. Specifically, we could ask Ben Olding to set up a webpage about it...would that be good enough? Is Ben Olding a good enough source? You know, the guy making the game? As for the popularity, the game has more than 100k views and earned Daily 5th Place on Newgrounds. I hold firmly by the belief that less popular games have had Wikipedia pages. No, I can't cite any, because I don't frequent Wiki'. And as for the topic of whether or not it's encyclopedic, it can be edited. DavidFrickinPiersol 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) — DavidFrickinPiersol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - just a comment that notability is not the same as popularity, and other stuff existing is not an argument (if it does, which it may or may not). In addition, Ben Olding's personal website is not a reliable source that could help with your notability problem. --Haemo 09:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent sources cited and none appearing via a Google search. Non-notable Flash game. To answer DavidFrickinPiersol, no Ben Olding's webpage would not be a good enough source. As the inventor of the game he is not independent and his endorsement does not make the game notable. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eventhought this game sounds like its not popular it should have Wikipedia page cause ppl do watch it and play it. Here link Here, Go search for it on Google. PLEASE KEEP THE ARTICLE. Its not fair.

Delete This flash game is certainly not notable. The fact that it exists (as noted by DavidFrickinPiersol (talk · contribs) has nothing to do with this nomination.--Svetovid 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I qant u guys to know there are games in wikipedia that are less popular than this! Also I have posted notes about this game. Can we atleast make a StarFighter Wiki? we can fix up the article any way u want!Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already !voted above --Haemo 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several members of the StarFighter Community contributed to this article trying to keep the article good... We can make it less like a game guide if that would be ok... Additionally the game has some notability, as Tom Fulp - Creator of Newgrounds ([26] has interviewed Ben Olding about the game's upcoming sequel... - Moo12321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo12321 (talk • contribs) — Moo12321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong KeepMany members of the Starfighter commuinity have contributed to it,I myself being one have to.The page should be kept because it has a way of informing people,it is popular,and it is NOT written as a game guide...-Jawa2.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawa2.0 (talk • contribs) — Jawa2.0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

CommentThe game is a notable flash game, if you do a Google search for Starfighter: Quadrant Wars it would show up on the list as the top one...

Comment The Wikipedia notability guidelines don't state "being at the top of a Google search" as a criterion for notability. If you search for Leebo86, I get the most hits for people who use that handle on the Internet, it seems. But that doesn't amount to anything at Wikipedia. Leebo ^T/C 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is just another flash game. There are no major mentions/reviews of this game at any major media site, failing WP:NOTE. Everything in the article is from the creator or people invovled with the project. Corpx 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: I just went through each and every unique Google hit on this game (given that there are only 44, it didn't take that long). Not a single one of them is from a reliable source. For all the SPA partisans claim that they can source this article to reliable sources -- and for the record, we're talking major gaming magazines, mass media, and the like -- they've yet to do so. The game's website isn't even on the Alexa chart. I'm quite willing to believe that there are a dozen fanatics who demonstrably really love this game, but I'm waiting for anyone to state the criteria at WP:V or WP:WEB this obscure game meets. RGTraynor 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give RGTraynor's mules some carrots, as his comment looks to be bang on. Fails WP:WEB at present. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. No assertion of notability is presented, nor are there any independent sources provided to back them up. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but even though I'm tempted to speedily delete it (NN web content), I'll let the AfD play out, so the community can clearly express where it stands—and possibly provide some borax, erm, salt for RGTraynor's mule team. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Strong Delete It's easy to get a top result on Google if you type in the exact name of what you are looking for. Strong Delete because it fails WP:NOTE, there are no independent sources, and fails WP:WEB. Klytos 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article shouldnt be deleted cause of these reasons. Evnthough waht u ppl are saying is corect its not right to dele it cause of that. We worked hard in making this article. And if ppl go and pass by this article they may want to join the games. Why dont u search up other flsh games u have on this website??/ THEY ARENT EVEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE AND YETU GET TO KEEP THEM!Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please calm down. There is no reason to SHOUT. Secondly, the other editors are citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines as their reasons to delete. As far as deletion discussions are concerned, these are the only types of arguments that matter -- ones that cite policies or guidelines. Other reasons, such as "we all worked really hard" and "we want to use Wikipedia to advertise our game" are not acceptable. Lastly, if you find articles about other non-notable flash games, nominate them for deletion. Leebo ^T/C 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Tuskerninni as a misspelling. ●DanMS • Talk 00:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuskernini[edit]

Delete. This page is a mispelled listing of an already existing article for a Darkwing Duck character, Tuskerninni. --ScreenwriterJeb

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected this page to Tuskerninni. ●DanMS • Talk 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Sveinson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination from DRV. This article was previously deleted at VFD and was recreated while the subject was being discussed at DRV. The DRV was inconclusive but the recreated version is superior to the deleted version. This article suffers from a lack of sources and possible recreation by its subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a documentary produced by a major TV company, [27] and a non-trivial regional newspaper article [28]. JulesH 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the previous editor stated, the subject is the focus of a documentary which assures his notability. However, the article does lack references or sources to back up the article. Ozgod 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Link to page on the CBC site about the documentary proves notability. Could use more sources, though. Precious Roy 10:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 04:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cursor Publication[edit]

This is supposedly my alma mater's school publication, but when I was still studying in this school, we didn't even have our own newsletter. So I presume that "The Cursor", as it stands, is still on in its infancy, and is far, far removed from being notable. I'm nominating it for deletion, at the risk of earning my fellow alumni's ire. Tito Pao 07:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. And no information at all. Berserkerz Crit 11:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Tito Pao. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 `'Mїkka 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bormotukha[edit]

Russian language slang term for cheap low quality wine. Totally unreferenced article. NO place in wikipedia for it. `'Miikka 07:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This could be a very interesting topic, but at the moment it's unclear from the text. If this is really a common type of cheap wine, then it may be as notable as the finest vintage. Cheers, DWaterson 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying it is not a "type" of cheap wine". It is a Russian slang for "cheap wine". the term has no usage in English language. `'Miikka 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it is Russian slang gives it a particular cultural interest which in itself actually justifies an article, rather than having one called Cheap Russian wine. Doudja 16:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep In all honesty it belongs as a brief mention in an article about Russian wine, which if I can create before this AfD close I'll just merge into there. However as it is own subject it does not merit an article for essentially a foreign language dic def. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <Shrug> Whatever. But if you write Russian wine and copy there some text from here, I will delete it as unreferenced. `'Mїkka 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and racism[edit]

This article is a clear POV fork, and is not very encyclopediac. The article presents a rebuddle to the claim that Islam is racist, but does not present the allegation. It makes no sense to have an article that refutes an allegation that was never made. I looked for a notable or scholarly source that made the allegation; there are none that I am aware of; the closest thing I could find was a reader comment to something Daniel Pipes wrote;[29] nothing that could go in the article. Because of the lack of another POV, this article is a POV fork, refuting a point that was never made, and is going to remain as such. Sefringle^Talk 06:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a series of notes in search of an encyclopedia article. As written, there's nothing coherent about it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a clear POV fork to me, and mostly an essay in this version --Haemo 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fork. --Hillock65 15:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While may be a vlid topic, the current article is a miserable original essay. `'Miikka 21:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of bollocks, that's all. It's a POV fork, and it doesn't even make sense. Sala Skan 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a mess.Proabivouac 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer plot summary[edit]

Delete - this is a series-long plot summary and Wikpedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 06:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Cut and dry violation of WP:NOT about plot summaries Corpx 06:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this a joke?--Sefringle^Talk 06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear cut. --Haemo 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just say NOT to plots! Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, moved to wikia:buffy. Carlosguitar 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Aside from any other consideration, this is information already completely duplicated in the individual season ep articles already on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides a brief summary of the plot arc for each of the seasons, without giving a blow-by blow description of everything that happens in each episode. A series such as this has events confined within an episode , but also has a season long plot arc, which is not contained in the capsule summaries of the individual episodes. Per WP:IAR we are not required to slavishly follow every word of WP:NOT when it removes encyclopedic content that editors see as important to understanding the main subject, such as a successful TV series. "Keep" results from AFDs such as this can provide evidence that the alleged policy does not reflect practice and needs to be revised. If the consensus is against keeping this as a standalone article, then I suggest the closing admin merge this to the main article to replace "Plot summary - The original television series". There are reliable and independent sources to back up such season-long plot summaries, to be found in the numerous sources listed in Buffy studies (no kidding!) Edison 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may now be in the small minority, but I continue to think such articles a reasonable way to provide plots, rather than individual episodes. For people (like me) who rarely watch these series, it is valuable to have some idea of what is going on, and that is a reasonable function for an encyclopedia that covers popular culture at all--to discuss it, it is necessary to say what it is. WP:NOT is subject to reasonable interpretation, like all policy--in this case, to say that the plot should not make up the majority of the overall discussion. And there no longer seem to be any individual season plot summaries.DGG (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just plot, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article. Much as I despise the hypocrisy of a system finds 400+ articles about Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be encylopedic, yet dismisses many grownup submissions on one Wikicommandment or another, I see no reason to delete a summary of what happened during the series. Merge, rather than keep, for the reason stated above... there are 400+ articles already. Mandsford 01:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So the reason you don't want this deleted is that there are other articles that should be and that they should be because they are not "grown up"? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT might make good reads. Jay32183 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be... might well be. Mandsford 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot summaries are supposed to "summarize" the plot, not describe them. Anything that says "Plot of ____" is describing it, in my opinion Corpx 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a good reason can be given stating that some of this info should be added to the main article plot summary. In that case, merge. — Deckill er 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia is not a story book. --maclean 05:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (TV series) plot summary[edit]

Delete - this is a plot summary of the series and Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete again, per WP:NOT which says no plot summaries Corpx 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, per the nom. Clear-cut. --Haemo 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Please tell me that plot summary articles aren't the next "in pop culture" gang to appear at AfD .. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, moved to wikia:buffy. Carlosguitar 15:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 15:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article provides a brief summary of the plot arc for each of the seasons, without giving a blow-by blow description of everything that happens in each episode. A series such as this has events confined within an episode , but also has a season long plot arc, which is not contained in the capsule summaries of the individual episodes. Per WP:IAR we are not required to slavishly follow every word of WP:NOT when it removes encyclopedic content that editors see as important to understanding the main subject, such as a successful TV series. "Keep" results from AFDs such as this can provide evidence that the alleged policy does not reflect practice and needs to be revised. If the consensus is against keeping this as a standalone article, then I suggest the closing admin merge this to the main article to replace "Plot summary". There are reliable and independent sources to back up such season-long plot summaries, to be fund in the numerous sources listed in Buffy studies (no kidding!) Edison 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may now be in the small minority, but I continue to think such articles a reasonable way to provide plots, rather than individual episodes. For people (like me) who rarely watch these series, it is valuable to have some idea of what is going on, and that is a reasonable function for an encyclopedia that covers popular culture at all--to discuss it, it is necessary to say what it is. WP:NOT is subject to reasonable interpretation, like all policy--in this case, to say that the plot should not make up the majority of the overall discussion.DGG (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a plot summary, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 18:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#PLOT. Masaruemoto 03:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N, unless anything is mergeable to the main article (in that case, merge). — Deckill er 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An encyclopedia is not a story book. --maclean 05:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - possible meatpuppetry aside, this does appear to be notable: [30]. The Evil Spartan 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MacHeist[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Several people believe this to be nothing more than an ad. I say let the democratic process roll on. Ke5crz 06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a fairly big event in the mac community. Ben 08:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's often referenced when talking about how this concept either positively or negatively influenced the developers. (they got many more customers, but some believe they were cheated on the price). Ij00mini 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it's had some media coverage, It doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article - especially when it reads like an advertisement. Seems like shameless self-promotion and still no print references. Keep Article has now been significantly improved. — Wackymacs 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very controversial subject, fairly important thing. -Biiaru 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Likely some Mac users will hear about it and want to look it up sometime. Tualha (Talk) 12:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This drew a lot of attention and the article points out multiple views of the events unvolved, positive and negative. The suggestion that this reads like an ad is all but comical when looked at with an open mind. --Blackfyr 06:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first MacHeist bundle was a pretty big deal in the Mac software community. It sold well, and it also created a fair amount of controversy with regard to how the profits were distributed. Also, the site (as far as I know) is planning to offer another similar bundle offer later this year, so the site is still relevant today. It probably should be cleaned up a bit to offer a more neutral point of view, but even as it is, it seems to be less advertisement-like than other articles I've seen. Etphonehome 18:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article significantly last night. Hopefully the modifications help to alleviate many of the concerns that have been brought up here. Etphonehome 17:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death yell[edit]

Original essay about a yell on an occasion of someone's death. Also, google gives nothing meaningful for the term itself `'Miikka 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely original research essay of an evident neologism. I must also laugh at how the "references" are cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It should be re-named Death Knell, the more common term. Move? Bearian 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE!!! - totally OR. Clarityfiend 05:46, 6 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 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article about an expression of grief, within the context of movies/tv/fiction. It's unencyclopedic, original research, unreferenced. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have always wondered why movie characters always seem to do this when someone is tragically slain, but while this article is entertaining it is not encyclopedic, referenced or even particularly informative. Euryalus 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Euryalus that the article is very entertaining but it is simply not encyclopedic. Naufana : talk 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Naufana. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual concept of a death yell as a mourning ritual may have been studied by anthropologists. However, this article is, practically speaking, "Death yells in popular culture", and we have sufficient precedent for deleting that type of article. cab 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil fighting[edit]

non-notable game. Origional research. No reliable sources.Wikipedia is not a manual. Sefringle^Talk 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Basic rules needs to be reworked into prose form. Naufana : talk 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources are found. --Haemo 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the references are a school rule that says "No pencil fighting", a myspace and a video. Unless somebody can dig up major media articles on pencil fighting, I'm voting for delete Corpx 06:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I remember pencil fighting. I'm kind of surprised there isn't more out there to support the article, but if there's not .. my memory doesn't count as a reliable source and it's gotta go. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And we fought with straws, sticks, folded pieces of paper ... so what? I doubt there were such standardized rules as the article claims. Violates WP:V going away. RGTraynor 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I got stabbed in the stomach when I was in 8th grade while pencil fighting, so I'm bitter. :) No, seriously, non-notable messing around. Corvus cornix 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apocryphal as that sounds there was a kid in my school who impaled his hand on a pencil in just such a stunt. Eww. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling the truth, I still have a little blue mark where the lead went into me and I had to have a tetanus shot. Corvus cornix 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lectonar as copyvio. - Richard Cavell 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex'pression College for Digital Arts[edit]

Article is written like an advertisement for the organization described in the article Captain panda 04:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I tagged it as a copyvio of this. This article is made up of various pages from expression.edu/about_us/. --Evb-wiki 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. Naufana : talk 05:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot as article was speedily deleted per CSD G11 by Pascal.Tesson. Daniel Case 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back of My Lac[edit]

Does not fulfill WP:MUSIC because artist's article was already deleted, both songs with articles are up for AfD, no references establish the notability of the album, it is a yet to be released album by an artist with no charted songs Tdmg 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the artist in question releases the album and it charts it can be rewritten until then delete. Naufana : talk 05:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album contains the current hit single "Bed" as well as the previous hit "Be With Me." Both made Billboard's R&B charts. Given that it contains two hit singles, it's almost guaranteed that it too will chart, but I don't think we have to resort to crystal ballism to say that an album containing two hit singles is notable per WP:MUSIC. GassyGuy 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about making a page for the artist first? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take back my statement about not being charted (I hadn't checked the R&B charts, just general one), however it has not charted high. Also, "Be With Me" is a copyvio from the artist's website "offering the age-old tale of a man wanting to be more than just friends with the object of his affections. “You be giving me the coldest shoulder/‘cause you don’t want your emotions taking over,” he croons. “Instead of talking about you looking for a soldier/are you trying to say you don’t see that in me?”" is taken directly from his myspace page. tdmg 20:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly recommend removing any copyvio content. A page on the artist - don't know anything about him, but based on the deletion log, it's been made and unmade several times now. GassyGuy 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As has been requested, I put up a stub about J. Holiday. I have never been able to figure out sourcing, but all chart positions are sourceable to Billboard if anyone would like to do that. GassyGuy 03:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete—contact me if you want to userfy for a merge or transwiki to Wikia or somewhere else. — Deckill er 03:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Defense Initiative storyline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - this is nothing but a plot summary and Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a plot summary. --Haemo 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what article was the first AfD looking at? Because this is wildly different from what they're talking about. --Haemo 05:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, something like this should be on a dedicated Command & Conquer website- not Wikipedia. Naufana : talk 05:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is plot summary from a video game, which does not belong here per WP:NOT Corpx 06:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just plot, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 18:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has more than just plot summary, including hioitory, development, and other relevant information to help provide context to the story. It's still a integral part of the game's storyline. --Eldarone 01:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's real world importance that matters, not in universe importance. The article contains no real world information to establish that. Jay32183 01:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the other stuff you mentioned would be better suited in the game article Corpx 02:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs to be turned around. I suggest to be added if not there to the article abotu the game?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.8.61 (talk • contribs) - Please dont sign as a user when you're not logged in

Weak Support - Per Eldarone. :-) Cheers, RR ^[iTalk] 23:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge Eldarone has a point, this does cover the history of the orginization; however, I feel that historical information about the rise of the UNGDI could be condensed to a paragraph or two and adequately presented over on the faction page. This methode was used for the article StarCraft, and since StarCraft is a featured article I presume there would be no large scale community objections to following in an FA's footsteps. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete and merge. If the page is merged the history must remain for copyright concerns. Jay32183 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn by nominator.--Isotope23 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American identity in the United States[edit]

Original Research which includes dubious sources (non-Indians claiming to be indians). Who is or is not Indian is defined by Federal Law, not Wikipedia. While the topic may have public interest there are no such controversies involving the named tribes in the article. Neither the Cherokee Nation nor the Dine (Navajo) Nation is currently involved in any controversies involving Federal recognition. Appears to be a POV fork of the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Article is a clever attempt to make Wikipedia a debate forum for Federal recognition and to attempt to mix ccontent about non-Federally recognized groups and Federally recognized groups in an attempt to legitimize these dubious groups claiming to be Indians. Article fails WP:V because the claimed sources cannot be verified. Many of the claimed sources do not state the positions claimed. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - The article has undergone an amazing transformation since I nominated it for AFD. Originally this article was clearly POV pushing of dubious views but has since been scrubbed and significantly enhanced. Given that the article is now worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, and has numerous other editors and eyes reviewing it, and the quality of the article has improved substancially, I withdraw the AFD. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete - Original research. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep This article is not just (or even primarily) about the U.S. legal definition of a native american individual as defined by the federal government. It is about the much larger, complex topic of cultural and self-identification as a native american and its implications. Though the article may need major sourcing and cleanup, this does not negate that this is the kind of complex, often heated topic that Wikipedia's neutral collaborative process was made for. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm somewhat inclined to agree with VanTucky, although I think this article needs to be cleaned up and edited down a bit. It could also use the attention of additional editors, it appears the majority of the article was written by a single person. Naufana : talk 05:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comprehensive and well sourced. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Needs some more verified sources. Legal definitions of what constitutes a "Native American" are important, since they control funding, and this article looks at that as well as traditional views within individual tribes. Israel has historically debated over a legal definition of Jewish, so it's not new. I'd vote to change the title to "Definition of Native American identity in the United States"-- the current title is misleading, seems too much like Raisin in the Sun --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
Keep as per everybody else. Article appears to be a well presented source of information on various issues surrounding "who is an indian?" in not just the legal, but also the social and personal definitions. --Maelwys 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, research does not equal original research. --Qyd 16:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: extremely well sourced, well written, might need a tad cleanup, but nothing I see is original research. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some sections could probably stand to be edited for succinctivity (is that a word?), but overall well-researched and certainly well sourced. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeff, we've been here before - as we commented at the Cherokee issue, there's a difference between who's "legally" and who's "culturally" Indian. However, (and Mansford makes an excellent point at this) I agree that refining the legal definitions could be in order; but that's all it takes for this article to address both legal and cultural identity as separate, yet related matters. Nothing dangerous nor inaccurate in that. Phaedriel - 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - While I agree with most of what you state here, we have here an article with two Indian Nations claimed to be embroiled in identity and Federal Recognition Controversies which in fact are not. The Cherokee and Dine have already been Federally recognized. It comes down to what is the encyclopedic term for "Indian" and who does it define. Remembering as well how often this title seems to get abused in modern times. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It happens, and there are good sources for the phenomena of self-identifying as Indian. Amerique^dialectics 22:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per similar article Non-admin closure. Rackabello 03:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA 2008[edit]

An exact copy of the correctly named NCAA Football 08 created by User:FSUNolez06, Salavat 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NCAA Football 08, seems only logical. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly Redirect to correct article, no need for discusion here. Non-admin closure. Rackabello 03:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA 08[edit]

An exact copy of the correctly named NCAA Football 08 created by User:FSUNolez06, Salavat 03:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NCAA Football 08, seems only a logical move. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly Redirect to original article, I don't think we need to waste our time on this one Rackabello 03:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games by genre[edit]

Indescrimante list. POV as well, as genre is not always absolute. (NOTE: Anyone who thinks this page is 'useful' ought to read WP:USEFUL ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not at all a useful list. Some games are hard to pigeonhole -- also, there're millions of video games out there, there's no way to list them all. Don't we already have categories for video game pages anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive, massive uncompletable list. Categories, people -- use them! --Haemo 03:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a fun list to peruse but Haemo is quite right, "Categories, people -- use them!" Naufana : talk 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete categorizing games/music etc into genres is dependent on one's POV. Besides, a category would be much better for this purpose Corpx 06:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete better serviced by a category. CaveatLector^Talk 11:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The problem with this article is that it needs to be sourced, too much OR and POV in a field that's been explored in published work. If no effort is made to fix that deficiency, then it should be deleted. However, video games, as with other entertainment, can and have been categorized. I have a feeling that this won't be fixed, no matter how much time is given, but if the author decides to try it, I hope to see it on User Talk. Mandsford 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. This is what categories are for. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great big mad delete per WP:LC (list better dealt with as a self-maintaining category). Stifle (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haemo. If you include web games and share/freeware, thousands of games are released yearly. There's no perceivable way to avoid runaway listbloat here. Best served by categories and/or specific lists (ie. List of MMOGs). Caknuck 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudkip egg[edit]

The topic has absolutely no notability, is linked to by no other articles, and information that was in this article originally was removed from the main article. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that when I added the AfD template, the article was a re-direct to Mudkip, the main article. I added the AfD template because I don't feel it has to be there. Mudkip egg wasn't linked to by anything, so nobody is going to click on it anyway. There isn't any need for this to be a re-direct, so why does it need to be an article anyway, even if it only consists of a re-direct? ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the redirect; I was simply being bold. I didn't notice your comment until I tried to close the AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was adding this message at the same time that you re-directed it. But I do think a Speedy Delete would be a better route, and it would sure be faster. I didn't think of it earlier because I kinda have a tendency to use AfD's. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Redirects for discussion guidelines, "nothing links here" isn't a reason to delete a redirect. cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is blank now, but the info that was in it belonged in the Mudkip article. DraxusD 03:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article There's absolutely no reason why a Pokemon EGG needs its own Pokemon article. Delete as per WP:Content fork. -WarthogDemon 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-empty}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment used to be non-empty, then blanked by someone else [31] cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless fork of Mudkip. Creator's comment in this edit [32] clearly indicates the reason he created this article is because he couldn't get editors of another article to accept his edits. cab 04:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless. Naufana : talk 05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable. Keep in mudkip article. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poke-cruft; then delete lead article (mudkip) likewise, and so, with the precedent established, delete all poke-cruft articles -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a debate about ~~pokecruft~~ Pokemon in general, and the pokemon themselves are not going to be deleted. Such a deletion of articles has already been discussed for the most part on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stantler. -WarthogDemon 03:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. This boils down to essentially a rather centric forkipe of Pokémon game mechanics and Mudkip, and reading over the creator's talk page, where this is discussed, it seems he thinks that Mudkip eggs are in and of themselves notable. They're no more notable than Togepi's egg. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted. Non-admin closure. Rackabello 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Baptist College[edit]

De-prodded article about unaccredited college with no claim to notability. Only external links and 20-odd words, I would have probably CSD'ed it if I hadn't prodded the previous incarnation. — Coren ^(talk) 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A1/A7 No context, no assertion of notability. Nothing to argue here Rackabello 03:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a requested article on the WikiProject Kentucky page, which I am heavily involved with. I was hoping that somebody also associated with the project could add more information to a stub article because the information that I found was very vague and there wasn't much to say about it. Removing this article doesn't offend me one bit, but I just thought I would give it a chance for somebody more "in the know" to save/expand it. Sorry to waste your time with it. WildManKY 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with WildManKY that it would be great if the article could be expanded, but as it stands, Rackabello has hit the nail on the head. Naufana : talk 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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} 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultra-Men[edit]

A one-shot team with no other information? Doesn't sound very notable. No references or other info, should be deleted Konczewski 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this can be expanded, merge it with Archie Comics, otherwise delete Rackabello 03:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not particularly notable, and this two-sentence article has been here for more than one year, so it looks like no one has any interest in expanding it. It provides no information about the subject anyway. ●DanMS • Talk 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brief mention on all of the various articles (The Fox, The Web, Captain Flag, & Archie comics) is sufficient. Naufana : talk 06:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Naufana. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing really worthwhile or sourced to merge. Daniel 05:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kim Deitch reader's resource/Stories/A Shroud for Waldo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Kim Deitch reader's resource/Stories/A Shroud for Waldo

Not an article so much as a bunch of words strung together. Not notable. Konczewski 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- so non-notable that it's practically an A1 candidate for having no context. --Haemo 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the foregoing comments. Makes me wanna say, "huh?" --Evb-wiki 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete, The little information in the article should be merged with the Kim Deitch article and then deleted. It seems someone was endeavoring to create a series of Deitch satellite articles, where none are really necessary. Naufana : talk 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kim Deitch, it's a capsule description of the book but doesn't seem to have independent sources to support an article of its own. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes without costumes[edit]

Doesn't seem like a very notable topic. Probably should be replaced with "List of superheroes without costumes Konczewski 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NN & violates WP:IINFO. Besides, I think trench coats, tuxedos, white suits & leather jackets may be considered costumes in this context. --Evb-wiki 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice to writing an actual article on the topic of superheroes who don't wear stereotypical or traditional costumes. Otto4711 03:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, are articles like this really necessary? perhaps if it is absolutely needed then a category would be serve this purpose better than an article or a list. Naufana : talk 06:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an directory of loosely associate topics that happens to be written in a non-list format. Jay32183 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm not really sure why. Unencyclopedic, I suppose. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Check[edit]

Non Notable single, uncharted on all charts, unreferenced HarryHall86 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable song. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, assuming that's notable enough not to get deleted as well. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:MUSIC#Songs (guideline, not policy) says that single release makes it notable, and Def Jam did release this as a single. Does need references. Precious Roy 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. WP:MUSIC#Songs says a song is probably notable if it is a released single by a notable artist. It still needs reputable, reliable, third-party sources, of which this article has none. --Geniac 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dongshan River Water Park[edit]

~~Non-notable park in China, no references.~~ east.718 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable tourist attraction. 45,000 GHits in Chinese [33], including 19 current GNews hits [34]. Note that the existing English title of the article is probably incorrect as Taiwan does not use Hanyu Pinyin romanisation; instead, every organisation, locality, and individual are free to use their own ad-hoc system ... cab 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hanyu Pinyin? Dongshan(冬山) is also a Tongyong Pinyinromanizions, doesn't like "Tungshan" in WG Taiwan formerly uses. It is difference such 板橋:Banciao in Tongyong, Hanyu is "Banqiao" ; 信義:Sinyi in Tongyong, Xinyi in Hanyu.Roded86400 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The official name is apparently "Dongshan River Park" but varies even on signage within the park itself, let alone what you can find on the Internet. In any case my comment was meant to pre-empt those who would just paste the English name (and not even the Chinese name) into a search engine and assume it was non-notable when they saw it only had a few hundred GHits. A newspaper quote you may find instructional: Yu, Ming-chin (2007-04-13). "Councilor says Ilan road signs offer mixed messages". Taipei Times. Hsieh said that there are currently seven different versions of the English for "Dongshan River Water Park" (冬山河親水公園), the county's most famous scenic spot, and foreign tourists find the phenomenon very puzzling. In addition to the official version, "Dongshan River Park" ... there are also a couple of versions simply romanizing the Chinese name for the park in different ways. cab 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. cab 07:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This park is NOT in China, it is in TAIWAN.Roded86400 07:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 09:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up bad with this nom, please withdraw. east.718 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a wintry keep. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films[edit]

Per WP:NOT. This is a directory of a certain type of films. H irohisat^{Talk Page} 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:IINFO. --Evb-wiki 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List of films on various topics/relationships are common and accepted; there are hundreds of others (List of biker films, List of animal films, List of sports films, List of Japanese films) - why is the list of LGBT films being singled out? ~~Bad faith?~~ AUTiger » talk 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's bad faith. Many "List of X films" have been deleted for being irrelevant intersections, too ORish, having too vague inclusion criteria, etc. In general I've been opposed to these deletions, but many of them have nevertheless been successful, so I don't think it's bad faith for this user to nominate it. --JayHenry 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been a bit reactionary due to the late hour with the bad faith comment; retracted. AUTiger » talk 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Autiger, unless we're deleting all List of ______ related films type lists Rackabello 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very valid argument. I'm assuming good faith here, as I doubt that the nominator has anything against LGBT culture as a whole, and just "singled out" this list because it's an indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics. The other lists of "____-related films" are also indiscriminate collections of loosely-associated topics, and probably should be nuked as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll acknowledge the basic premise of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although I'd argue the difference in scale for 'Lists of xxx films' implies validity. Regardless, as others point out, queer cinema is a pretty well-established topic/genre with at least one book and a couple of documentaries [35] [36] covering the subject. AUTiger » talk 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a case of WP:IINFO. Indiscriminate list (by the way, I have nothing at all against LGBT culture either). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT clearly does not apply here. CitiCat 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like almost all these "List of X films" it's simply not original research and simply not indiscriminate. --JayHenry 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Of course this is list of a certain type of films, just like Westerns or Musicals are a certain type of film. Queer cinema is a notable genre of film covered in many reliable published sources; they don't have whole festivals revolving around the very films on this list for nothing. This stinks of either Deletionism of lists run amok or a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however there's no need to list all the films in two kinds of order. - Gilliam 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VanTucky. Irk _(talk) 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VanTucky. If a genre is recognized by reliable sources, and this one clearly is even with a quick Google search, a list is neither indiscriminate nor unnecessary. --Charlene 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldnt a category be much more suited for this purpose? Corpx 06:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has long been established that lists and categories should coexist, unless something's changed when I wasn't looking. —Xezbeth 07:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious keep Nominator is a new editor and appears to misunderstand what a directory is. Nothing in WP:NOT suggests this should be deleted. SP-KP 09:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this or delete all other 'List of X Film' articles. (Which I wouldn't terribly mind doing, personally). CaveatLector^Talk 10:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you are for the deletion of articles like this, you should probably make your "vote" delete as the deletion process does not cite precedent. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too indiscriminate in my opinion. The list is definetly not specific to films which focus purely upon the topics but could also easily include films with characters of such orientation. Also, just because certain campaigns and people feel it necesary to link Lesbians, Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Transgender people under a single banner is no reason for Wikipedia to indiscriminately combine information in the same way. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled incivility is still incivility, please refrain from making accusations about what 'certain projects' want to do or don't want to do. The articles title DOES say 'related' films and not 'films with LGBT characters', so your reasoning that it is extremely easy to add a film doesn't pan out (if a fil, obviously doesn't belong, we can remove it). I'll also remind you thought IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. All that being said, I said that I wouldn't mind deleting all 'List of x films' articles because categories would do a MUCH better job at the purpose these articles claim to fulfill. However, it rather irks me that the LGBT article in this batch was seemingly targeted here, and if all of the others stay, this one certainly should to. My 'vote' (I take it by your scare quotes that you know we are not voting, only discussing) remains as it was. CaveatLector^Talk 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jimmi, if you feel LGBT is a fringe neologism fit for deletion, go ahead and nominate it for an AFD. See what happens. The term is not only patently entrenched in culture, but it is a term of self-categorization by LGBT individuals. It's hardly a term forced on individuals and a community by some lobbying group. Once more, your OR arguments about the fraudulence of the LGBT categorization have nothing to do with deleting this list, ~~and you only betray your intolerance and ignorance of common LGBT issues~~. Even if the term did not exist, a list of films significantly dealing with the most statistically prevalent sexual minorities would be fit for inclusion. As to the specificity of the list, how much more specific can you get than films only dealing with lesbian, gay, trans and bisexual themes? It's like saying a List of modern black and white films is unspecific. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being called a bigit myself, I believe all Jimmi was pointing out was that, although these groups are joined by similar social (and political) issues, they are different and distinct groups. I don't see us merging the individual gay, lesbian, bisexuality and transgender articles into LGBT. This article possibly lumps The Crying Game, Relax...It's Just Sex, Better Than Chocolate, Lost and Delirious, Frisk, Total Eclipse, Threesome, Ode to Billy Joe, etc. (off the top of my head) together, when some have very little in common. BTW, ignorance does not always equal intolerance. --Evb-wiki 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would never call anyone a bigit, and bigot was your word, not mine. I'm not labeling Jimmi with what is most certainly a perjorative, so I retract what you seem to think are too personal of comments.
Just because you pick out the most seemingly unrelated films from the list, does not a rational statement about the total relation of all the films in the list make. Of course some are going to be more related to LGBT themes than others, and quite possibly the list needs trimming. But needing a small amount of cleanup doesn't mean that the entire article begs deletion because it is a vague subject. The problem is that some of these films may not fit the definition of the list, not that the list has no clear definition. But most importantly, your characterization that a film about bisexuality and a film about homosexuality are not related is just a personal point of view. The grouping of LGBT together is not questionable, to say the least. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per others. Structured and comprehensive list that serves an obvious purpose. PC78 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for a number of reasons; (a) unlike the other "films about" lists, these are not films "about homosexuality", there are numerous books written on the subject so that we know there are sources (are they used, well, not as much as they ought to be but the do exist) so no reason to delete on the usual score, (b) the genre is well-known and the subject of numerous WP:RSes, and I'll also add (c) the stealth nomination "added tag" was the edit comment for the AfD, contrary to our policies, for something as likely as this to be controversial I can assume good faith and say that this was just extremely bad form. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per debate. Daniel Case 04:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way of the Wind[edit]

This should even be a speedy. Martial art creasted this year by a high school student with the same name as the creator of the page? Total joke and if not WP:COI. Peter Rehse 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 per nom. This is WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NFT, and other alphabet soup. :) Shalom ^Hello 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day Rackabello 03:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Might not fit the letter of A& per se, but so obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia that further attention is unwarranted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Nod storyline[edit]

Delete - the article is nothing but a plot summary and Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries Otto4711 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP:NOT Rackabello 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. --Haemo 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Irk _(talk) 06:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as GDI summary, this is a plot summary, which isnt allowed per WP:NOT Corpx 06:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just plot, fails WP:NOT#PLOT by design. Jay32183 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay32183. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, among other things. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EditPad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:N: no multiple, third-party, non-trivial sources. A cursory Scroogle search [37] shows a ton of download sites, but no reviews, or magazine articles, or anything like tha requiredt. Download sites don't establish notability because thousands of downloads are hosted on various sites. The other AFD only listed on review [38] which does not meet the multiple threshold. hbdragon88 01:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rackabello 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable little app. I have been using it for years. There are plenty of reviews on the web and on Magazine paper. Look for them and fix the page accordingly if you must. Editors' laziness to link reviews does not warrant a deletion. Instead of wasting peoples' time in this nomination try fixing the page.--LexCorp 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus is on those who want to keep it to provide those sources. hbdragon88 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like another promotion article. Significant amount of edits were done by anon users. I've read thousands of PC magazine articles, and I've never heard of this one. "Just Great Software, Inc. currently offers two editions of EditPad: Lite, which is freeware for non-commercial usage only; and Pro, a shareware product that costs 49.95 USD after a 30-day evaluation period". Eh hem. 49.95, eh? (Wikimachine 13:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
comment other reviews listed on previous AfD; [39], [40], and [41]. 3 is more than one. :) I have no idea about if these sources passes WP:RS, ie. I don't know what editorial processes exists, which is why this is not a keep vote. Taemyr 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two links are just download centers. As I argued in the nom, those don't really establish notability. The third looks incredibly trivial, three paragraphs on a site that doesn't look like significant media coverage. hbdragon88 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is obvious forum-shopping. Relisting is less than 3 weeks after previous AfD, and no notification have been given to authors involved in the article.Taemyr 14:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that there was a time limit to renominating it. I am not renominating it on the exact same grounds. It clearly isn't advertising, for instance, but I definitely don't think it's notable. hbdragon88 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of Monster in My Pocket characters. Sr 13 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre (Monster in My Pocket)[edit]

Contested prod, reason: "Clearly its non-notable to you, but as lots of editors have done work on Monster in My Pocket why not ask them if they want to merge it. I agree Spectre is a dicdef, what a shame you haven't done anything to clean it up! Far easier to go around proposing the deletion of pages I suppose Mighty Antar 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)". It's an individual figure from a toy line, I can't see how it's notable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that it's notable enough for its own page, merely that someone else obviously thought it notable enough to add to Spectre in the first place. There is a lot of information on Monster in My Pocket but not enough for me (who hasn't got the slightest interest in toy figures!) to known where or how to merge the Spectre (Monster in My Pocket) information seamlessly. Deletion is a very easy option, but occasionally the easy option isn't always the right one. Mighty Antar 01:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Item is WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 02:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone thought it was worth mentioning does not mean that it is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please see WP:Notability. -Feeeshboy 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. CitiCat 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Monster in My Pocket. Doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own page. The spectre disambig page can easily be amended to link to Monster in My Pocket instead. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of miracles[edit]

This article has no content since creation over a month ago. It is an empty article. Sefringle^Talk 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, better to get knowledgeable editors to work on expanding it rather than just deleting it Guycalledryan 01:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We waited over a month, and nothing was done, even leaving comments on wikiprojects. Still, nothing.--Sefringle^Talk 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Sefringle... Rackabello 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although an editor has added a few miracles, the article must be impossibly huge to comply with NPOV. Every miracle attested in every religion? Every miracle acknowledged by an organized religion? Every miracle commonly believed by major religions? Any definition becomes unwieldy. Articles already exist collecting more narrowly defined sets of miracles; see Miracles attributed to Jesus and Our Lady of Lourdes. Katherine Tredwell 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment now it is just origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 02:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a POV disaster waiting to happen. It could reasonably be expected to include Jewish and Moslem miracles if anyone cares, but I don't like the whole idea. It makes much more sense to separate the articles by religion, as List of miracles in Judaism, List of miracles in Christianity]], and so forth. Shalom ^Hello 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shalom. In it's current form, this can only become a mess. CitiCat 03:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Katherine Tredwell DraxusD 04:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not trying to offend anyone, but all of these are only cited by fictional works, so delete based on the lack of references Corpx 06:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are literally thousands of purported miracles every year, ranging from the face of Jesus being seen on a potato chip to televangelists claiming to have performed miracles to actual incidents of phenomena for which no rational explanation can be found. There is no neutral way to distinguish which of these miracles are worthy of inclusion and which are not (i.e. which are "real" miracles and which aren't). Also (and this is an observation, not an argument for deletion), notice that only miracles from the Abrahamic religions are noted. There are plenty of miracles (or purported miracles) in Eastern religions as well (such as the Hindu milk miracle). Bottom line: this article is a POV minefield and is unmaintainable in any neutral fashion. --Hnsampat 11:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not that a list of miracles is a bad idea, but this is way too broad... one might as well put up a List of good deeds. Since at least two verified miracles are a prerequisite to canonization of a saint in the Roman Catholic Church, miracles are documented and taken quite seriously. Miracles specific to an individual subject, by religion, would be appropriate. In addition, this one is subject to vandalism. I think Hillary Clinton once told her husband, "It'll be a miracle if you're re-elected in '96." I agree with everyone above. Mandsford 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shalom. --Hillock65 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hnsampat. NawlinWiki 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, with an additional observation that many miracles may well fall short of notability guidelines. I can see a potential WikiProject or other group to deal with miracles reported in detail (thus bypassing many of the televangelist miracles), however. John Carter 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category would be better, reliable sources are absent, and the topic is so wide as to have a serious potential of descending into listcruft. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already a Miracles category. Katherine Tredwell 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scope of the topic is concerning and could turn out badly. Captain panda 05:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 doesn't address any concerns, sufficiently referenced. Sr 13 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations (Game)[edit]

This is an interesting issue. The original article, Cyber Nations, has been salted from recreation. This is not a straight recreation of a deleted article, it has more info and sources, so I don't think it falls under speedy G4. So I guess the options are: Do we delete it? Do we un-salt the original name and move it there? Or what? Golbez 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the article itself, but if kept, it needs to at least be history merged with User:Pious7/Cyber Nations (I believe that is the origin of this version). --- RockMFR 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ...but... if the sources check out, list at DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the whole point of sending this to AFD was to skip the DRV altogether. - hahnch e n 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this is improved enough to justify inclusion. The sources are there, notability is there, and I think it just about meets WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has plenty of references, and a pretty big contriversy that definitely makes it notable. Turlo Lomon 09:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per discussion. Daniel Case 05:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Isle[edit]

A cancelled amateur game which has never received any kind of exposure and is sourced only from the would-be creator's forum. This is speedyable, but the article has been here a bit so AFD it is. - hahnch e n 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definitely A7 and possible G11 as well. Don't think we should waste our time with this one Rackabello 01:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing to argue here. Katherine Tredwell 02:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkunkCheats[edit]

The article was nominated for speedy deletion under G11 (spam) but an anonymous user (likely a sockpuppet of the article's creator) keeps removing it. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user has now been blocked for 24 hours, so it should be no problem to speedy delete article as spam. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Oysterguitarist 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G11 Rackabello 01:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, notability and COI concerns. Sr 13 07:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulli lust[edit]

Webcomic author of dubious notability. Clear conflict of interest. Also nominating:

Shalom ^Hello 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and Geogre's law. If kept, move to capitalize name properly. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandura Ensembles[edit]

Indiscriminate listcruft. Unmaintainable and impossible to screen for outliers. Shalom ^Hello 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list was one day old! I see nothing wrong with creating lists of ensembles. I created such list -- List of gamelan ensembles in the United States -- and found sources, completed it and now maintain it. What makes you think this is not possible in this case? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with this list. It needs some improvement but is hardly a candidate for deletion. --Hillock65 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but wikify (like it's done for List of gamelan ensembles in the United States) and cite sources. --Novelbank 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category is fine. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify. —dima /talk/ 14:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 07:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Osbourne[edit]

Non notable wrestler, both companies mentioned are redlinks, and PROD was removed by anon IP incorrectly. Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of those promotions are notable, thus making him not notable, as well. Nikki311 00:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Montco 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nikki311. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "long time unsourced" arguments win out. Daniel 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hollenberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This TV host fails WP:BIO, since no independent sources are given. Previous nomination half a year ago resulted in "no consensus" with only "weak" arguments after short discussion. But the article has not improved since, no sources have been added. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This guy seems notable enough; he's apparently had several programs, although his tenure at Daily Sports Source would give him more credibility in my book than the HSN gig. Instead of complaining that he doesn't have sources, why not go about finding him some instead? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to add anything you may find, but no one has done so since November 06. --B. Wolterding 23:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to verify notability. Keep only if citations are added that assert his notability. Tdmg 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the fact that he was a show host on national networks Corpx 06:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about the situation in the US; in Europe, home shopping networks are rather niche players, even when broadcast nationally, and their hosts are not really well known (and are hardly ever being written about). --B. Wolterding 17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly referring to co-hosting a show on FSN for 3 years Corpx 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tdmg. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long term unsourced, no evidence of notability, no RS to ensure verifiability. SamBC 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it is too easy to get an article created about an individual without notability and seems progressively more difficult to delete it; Wikipedia evolves into a collection of trivia rather than an encyclopedia, which IMHO, is not a good thing. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, even after relisting. Daniel 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (wrestler)[edit]

Non notable wrestler, mainly works for non notable indy fed (which is a redlink). His only claim to fame is a Tag reign in CZW, but there are a lot of CZW wrestlers who don't have articles, I don't think that is a reason for this article. And while I don't doubt that CZW and those of that type are worthy feds, I don't think every wrestler that they have ever booked needs and article. Darrenhusted 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 18:37, 1 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, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worked in a number of promotions; won two tag team championships; one interview already on the article. As an entertainer, he is notable. John Vandenberg 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable wrestler. Has wrestled both AJ Styles and Low Ki in IWA Mid South. — 81.157.206.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halyn[edit]

This is one out of a series of articles about whales at SeaWorld, and in my opinion it fails WP:N by far. The article goes entirely unsourced. It is true that some press coverage mentioning this whale exists (maybe not for every detail of the article); but I would count this towards the notability of SeaWorld, not of the individual animal. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, neither for humans nor for whales. A merger discussion ended without clear consensus; and in fact there is not much that could reasonably be merged. While I personally think that the case for deletion is quite clear, this should be thoroughly discussed since it might affect more articles. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Individual animals in captivity can sometimes be notable, just as individual companion animals can, and this is an example. There are only 47 orcas in captivity, they all have names, they are known individually and have individual characteristics, the genealogical information is a very small part of the article--though it shouldn't have been at the top--and there are responsible sources for information. [42]DGG (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that individual animals can be notable in some cases, when there's really exceptional coverage around. But why does that hold for each of these 47 orcas? I am fine with an article Orcas at SeaWorld, or Orcas in captivity, and that one could as well contain a table with all 47 animals, but having one article per animal just seems to be one level of detail too much, in my point of view. Actually, the genealogic information seems to be a good part of the article, spread out into multiple sections, and much of the rest is trivial, and partly speculation (just see the section "Halyn's story"). In short, I don't think there is much encyclopedic to tell about individual orcas. --B. Wolterding 17:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. I can't see how this whale is notable. Perhaps we could merge it into Orcas at SeaWorld. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete b/c it sounds like a promotional article to me. Significant amount of edits were done by anon users. (Wikimachine 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, unless references can be found. Sr 13 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Havana mambo[edit]

Questionably notable musical group, no references, claims to "national tours" not substantiated, no discography or other claims to notability SkierRMH 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and find references. Google has enough hits (26,000) to do this, especially if we can find a Spanish speaker. Shalom ^Hello 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It is for those seeking to include content to provide references. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up, expanded, and referenced properly. If we kept everything unverifiable so we could find references, the encyclopedia would very quickly grind to a halt. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Generico[edit]

Non notable wrestler with no refs Darrenhusted 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Darrenhusted 14:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major player in PWG, that it's unreferenced is in itself not enough to delete the article (only contentions parts of the text) MPJ-DK 14:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Extremely notable and popular independent worker, having made major appearances in ROH and PWG, and is current PWG World Champion. Kris 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable wrestler with apparrences in notable indy feds, is on the current ROH PPV, as for refs check out the Quebec's Wrestling Almanac, he even made the cover of the 2005, '06 and '07 editions. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 06:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment then find some non trivial sources, so far his name is mentioned in passing in winning indy titles, there is no references to support the rest of the article. Darrenhusted 10:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable wrestler. Seem to be missing sources. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he's definitely notable on the indy scene. He's a huge player in PWG and in ROH; the article just needs a lot of work.WikiFew 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable Windy 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this WWEkipedia? Because I'm wondering why someone who has a big part in PWG and ROH is considered non-notable. If someone has a problem with the sources, tag the article for that, not deletetion. Demolicious 05:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-core[edit]

Original research
Not a single source
Not notable
No articles link to this article (the article, however, has existed for almost a month)
Neologism

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 14:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Please cite references, else the grim reaper awaits. :) Shalom ^Hello 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 04:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless sources are cited. Irk _(talk) 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like something that somebody just made up. I cant find anything about this anywhere, so I'm categorizing this as original research Corpx 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research. Term has never seen use in public or within music industry. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unattributed article and neologism. Carlosguitar 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --NotebookSevereConditions 15:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NotebookSevereConditions just got blocked for vandalism/trolling, so take that !vote for what it is worth.--Isotope23 15:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism -- Magioladitis 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. One of several dozen music genres made up in school daily. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Def Jam: Street Legend[edit]

This article is pure speculation, and possibly a hoax. No reliable sources, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of citations from reliable sources means that the article is unverifiable. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced information, especally that 12-year old "rapper".--68.44.84.185 22:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There will be a Def Jam 4--Bobby Valentino43 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin see [43]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Def Jam: Back To The Streets is a fork of this article by the same author and should also be deleted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and a complete mess. Vandalized many times. --esanchez, Sign your name here! 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Financial[edit]

Written like advert. Fails WP:CORP. Jauerback 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who started the page is named "[email protected]", so this is probably spam. GhostPirate 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP.Montco 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of decent sources, and WP:SPAM, and so on. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebula (Kelis album)[edit]

As far as I know, there are two facts known about Kelis's next album: she has begun work on it, and she wants to work with Calvin Harris. And neither of these facts are adequately cited in the article. Further, it is half-filled with unsourced rumours and speculation and completely inaccurate information (title, producers, song titles etc.), much of which is presented in some strange, virtually incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness mess of writing (see the third "paragraph"). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 21:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there are details (and cited ones at that) to talk about. The album will almost certainly be notable on release, and may well be notable prior to that, but it isn't at the moment. Note further that the article creator removed the AfD notice, something about which he has now been warned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, name unverified, as it stands that would be crystal-ballery, to say nothing about the article standard, or lack thereof. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreement with other arguments. Please note that if this is deleted, this should be followed up by deleting the identical articles Untitled Kelis 5th studio Album and Untitled 5th Studio Album (both proded). Cmprince 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Ross[edit]

Autobiography/vanity article - self-promotional; insufficient notability - local artist — ERcheck (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article, I can verify that it is not autobiographical or self-promoting in nature. Artist Randy Ross is a very prominent figure in the art world here on Maui. He is responsible for numerous annual shows that take place in the state of Hawaii and is the winner of numerous artistic awards. His paintings are prominently display throughout our community in numerous public institutes. This article is to be a work in progress. As more references can be found and verified they will be included in the article.--Rossmaui 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedior (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 July 2007[reply]

Article was created by User talk:Rossmaui. Wikiedior, are you editing under two usernames? — ERcheck (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was logged in on Wikiedior's computer by mistake. Wikiedior is my assistant in creating this article on Randy Ross.--Rossmaui 01:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedior (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 July 2007[reply]

To user signed in as Wikiedior, please read the note on User talk:Wikiedior. Accounts are not to be shared. Also, please sign your posts. — ERcheck (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, does not sound like article sugar coats the article, so even if a self-written vanity piece it still is a good article with enough sources. My only critism is to merge the trivia section into the main article as paragraphs and not as a seperate section. Callelinea 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ross currently holds two doctorate degrees, both a PhD and an honorary doctorate degree and is the subject of a documentary that was created in 2006.--Wikiedior 01:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiedior (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 July 2007[reply]

How is that relevant to this discussion? In what field? Which universities? What years? References? — ERcheck (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Randy Ross is a prominent figure in the art world, particularly on the island of Maui which has become widely known for having a huge art community and contributing significantly to the arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.76.131 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 6 July 2007
- I recently saw one of Ross' paintings on display behind the front desk of the Lahaina Shores Beach Resort in their main lobby. The painting can also be seen on the Lahaina Shores Beach Resort website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.76.131 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 July 2007
  - All but two of the user's edits are to this article and related. -- Tyrenius 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and am helping to develop it. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest in my creating this article. I do not personally know Mr. Ross nor am I personally involved in anything regarding Mr. Ross. Ross is a well-known artist here on Maui and it is my intention to create an entry to provide information about the artist on WikiPedia. I created my Wikipedia account specifically to create this article on Randy Ross, hence, I chose the username "Rossmaui." My name is Karen Fischer. --Rossmaui 23:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If my vote counts, it is to keep this article.--Rossmaui 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edits are to this article and related. -- Tyrenius 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my belief that this article contains academic value and should be kept.--Wikiedior 00:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edits are to this article and related. -- Tyrenius 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The anonIP, Wikiedior, and Rossmaui are admitted meatpuppets/sockpuppets and are rallying voting. These are all indef blockable offenses, not to mention writing your own article crosses WP:COIN. Rlevse 00:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rlevse.Sumoeagle179 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they admitted sockpuppets? Whose votes have they rallied? Also, it doesn't seem like they are writing their own article. Read the discussion page for the article.--24.94.76.131 00:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity article. Should be speedy deleted. GreenJoe 03:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't see a valid reason for deletion. References are there, notability seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on article's sources: I went through and checked the "reference" list. The list was taken from the artist's website. At least one did not mention Ross at all. Most of them were about the 2006 Portrait show, and of these, they were for the most part focused on the Winner of the juried show, not Ross, who won the people's vote. I've left in the citation that refered to Ross. See the article's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't present notability. Modernist 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Modernist Johnbod 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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