Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 1
< October 31 | November 2 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tonka Rescue Patrol[edit]
- Tonka Rescue Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Orphaned stub, apparently about a game. Its one and only sentence is spam. Lack of context/content almost makes it a contender for a speedy deletion, but just in case it's a horribly notable game I thought I'd bring it here to be rescued. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Has 666 Ghits, mostly resales of used games but not even reviewed by IGN, a useful source for video games. Released 2003. Have put a notice on Project:Video Games to see if anyone's keen on rescuing this but as it stands it fails notability. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I can certainly see how this one ended up at AFD, probably one of the least notable GameCube games in existence... however! Gamefreaks365 review, GameSpy E3 Preview, the composer produced work for several other games and according to his own page the game's music received an award (whether it's a desperately notable award is to be seen). GameSpot lists the game as having been reviewed by Nintendo Power here, there may be some other magazine reviews somewhere. There's pretty much nothing else on the web.Someone another 01:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Someone another. Notable, especially the Nintendo Power coverage sounds promising for notability. We shouldn't delete articles because we happen to cannot get a certain magazine. User:Krator (t c) 11:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - awesome. Does anyone want to add those sources, or the content, to the article itself? Cos, right now, it's a 1-sentence stub that doesn't even assert notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Only reviewed by one major outlet (I don't think gamefreaks365 cna be considered "significant secondary coverage" per WP:N) means that it's not that worthy of noitce, per WP:N. hbdragon88 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability has been far from proved in the one line stub. That the game existed is shown by the two reviews, but if people are scrabbling around to find a possible third or fourth review that in itself is damning proof that this game lacks any kind of significant existence, let alone notability. 666 ghits is pathetic - my user name is unique to me, and I get 44,600 ghits - but I'm not notable. Delete, piss on it, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia about stuff that rocks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tome of Time[edit]
An article on a book from a cartoon series, featuring either WP:OR or a lack of external third-party sources. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT. No evidence of notability via secondary sources, 30 ghits for "'Tome of Time' 'swat kats' -wikipedia". Doctorfluffy 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently notable fictional item. No coverage at all by independent reliable sources. — Satori Son 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Niko Papasideris[edit]
- Niko Papasideris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Originally marked with a speedy deletion tag; I moved it here to allow some discussion as there may be a marginal claim to notability. However, it currently reads like an advertisement. If someone can provide some reliable, third-party sources, then clean it up and keep it. If not, then this one needs to go. Tijuana Brass 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced vanity page by/for non-notable artist. --DAJF 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found very little about this musician that wasn't self-promotion; doesn't meet WP:BAND. Accounting4Taste 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speedy per A7 vanicruftisement. Martijn Hoekstra 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:VSCA -- Dougie WII 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Here be non-notable musician. tomasz. 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Carlosguitar 04:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Balthorium[edit]
This article is about a very minor plot element in a famous movie. There are no references, probably because none exist. A lot of speculative OR, fails WP:NEO and common sense. Gentlemen, you can't write this here, this is the Wikipedia! <eleland/talkedits> 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:FICT. Secondary sources do not appear to exist to establish notability. Google turns up only fansites and related. Doctorfluffy 05:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. WP:FICT, WP:OR (WP:SYNTH) & no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not even worth redirecting to the movie. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Castle irwell student village[edit]
- Castle irwell student village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Merge/redirect to University of Salford or University of Salford campus. Neutralitytalk 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of Salford. -- RHaworth 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirect as it's the wrong capitalisation. Reads like an advert and seems non-notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable studnt residence, potentially speedyable as G11. DGG (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, nothing to address concerns for deletion. --Coredesat 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavadon[edit]
Non-notable, in-universe use only D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Mark it as a stub and start a rewrite. The character is clearly notable to the series. Hagan jared 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in the series does not indicate it passes WP:N or WP:FICT. Do secondary sources discuss this topic? Doctorfluffy 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natalie 23:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe the article, while definitely in need of cleanup and perhaps images as well, was nominated in bad faith as per Doctorfluffy's User page. Simply deleting things for the sake of deleting things does nothing to improve Wikipedia. -- Veled 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My user page is talking about WP:N, which is one of the most important concepts here, and the disrespect it constantly receives from uninformed editors. I suggest you read it. Also, check out WP:FICT, the specific notability policy for fictional subjects, which explains how articles on such topics need references from reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: how does this possibly fulfill the requirement of coverage by multiple secondary sources? Nyttend 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails to assert notability. Fails WP:FICT. Fails WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Secondarily, agree with assertion that this was nominated in bad faith. -- Masterzora 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omnibus (song)[edit]
- Omnibus (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I don't know if this trance song has ssufficient notability, but no outright proof is given in the article. I'm unsure in any case if any reliable sources would have written about the song. The artist who performs the song is redlinked. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Article as it stands is OR, website linked as ref is commercial - and if you believe that those who bought this (a trance record) also bought Sonny & Cher & The Association! Also, does not appear to have hit anything but personal charts, and that at number 415=. Extremely underground, possibly a good track, but no way notable. I've been around trance for about 15 years and have never heard of it. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as seeming to fail WP:N.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless reliable sources can be produced to verify notability per WP:Music#Songs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Pater[edit]
- Jonathan Pater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced WP:BLP stub. ^demon[omg plz] 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You're kidding right? Hansonc 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think I prodded this a while back, cause it was on my watchlist. Anyway, no mention of notability, no sourcing. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean other than being a founding member of the most popular tech news site on the planet right? Does this mean I should AfD Jimbo Wales because all he's done is create an online encyclopedia? Hansonc 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, if Jimbo had not been in multiple press interviews and had hundreds of reliable sources. There is no verifiability here, so there is no content here, so there is no article. What has Pater done lately anyway? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but if you are going to ignore Cowboyneal's reason for notability (Slashdot) you have to ignore Jimbo's too (Wikipedia) and the only reason he was interview was for Wikipedia so those sources are useless too. Seriously he's famous for what he's famous for why does he need to be famous for something else to pass your notability test? Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I don't give a damn about notability, I care about sourcing. Jimbo has been in press. Pater has not. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but if you are going to ignore Cowboyneal's reason for notability (Slashdot) you have to ignore Jimbo's too (Wikipedia) and the only reason he was interview was for Wikipedia so those sources are useless too. Seriously he's famous for what he's famous for why does he need to be famous for something else to pass your notability test? Hansonc 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Yes, if Jimbo had not been in multiple press interviews and had hundreds of reliable sources. There is no verifiability here, so there is no content here, so there is no article. What has Pater done lately anyway? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean other than being a founding member of the most popular tech news site on the planet right? Does this mean I should AfD Jimbo Wales because all he's done is create an online encyclopedia? Hansonc 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hansonc, the reason it should be deleted isn't nec. because he's not notable; it's that there is no reason in the article that is sourced that says that he is, and that the entire article is clearly just promoting slashdot, which is not acceptable. Barsportsunlimited 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Isn't the reason any individual has a wikipedia article about them for the promotion of what they do? I'm going back to Jimbo here. Would he have a wikipedia page if he hadn't founded the site ? The answer is no. What's his job? Promoting Wikipedia. What's his Wikipedia page do? Promote Wikipedia and Wikia. So basically to get back to my point, of course Cowboyneal's wikipedia page discusses what he does and what he's known for, Slashdot, as it should. Hansonc 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, it isn't "the reason" people have articles. Articles must assert notability, be verifiable, and have enough content to deserve a separate article. This article fails ALL THREE. Mention he's a co-founder in Slashdot and delete this unverified substub. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So what you're saying is being known for what he's known for isn't good enough. What would make him notable other than being an editor of slashdot. Back to Jimbo. He's only notable for founding wikipedia, should his article be deleted as well since he's not notable for anything other than what he's notable for? He is an extremely early (he was there within about a year of the original purchase of the domain name) editor of slashdot (employee #6 according to my count from the slashdot history here) and he has always been the "humorous" poll choice. Personally I feel it was a bad idea for Jonathan Pater to be the article when he's actually known as Cowboyneal but that's a whole different argument. By the way, I do agree this needs to be cleanedup and expanded but it certainly shouldn't be deleted. Hansonc 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It does need a rewrite to show a source for notability, but it's a definite keep. Geoffrey.landis 02:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment here's the last time someone tried to delete the article in question Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CowboyNeal as you can see it's a nearly unanimous keep. It's still here for a reason. Hansonc 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For all the reasons listed by Hansonc --Vrmlguy 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability and the article is mainly concerned with his name's origin anyway. Bobby1011 06:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete He is a pretty 'known' person, but I can't find any sources (at all). A google test throws up lots of results, but no reliable sources (that I found). Without those it will never satisfy WP:BLP. Martijn Hoekstra 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Martijn Hoekstra. It doesn't appear that sources actually exist to establish notability per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was just the information I was looking for. --Dmcneece 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Wooden[edit]
Asserts notability, but I can find no verifiable sources for claims of being pundit, being disliked by China, or being censured by Congress. Cannot find evidence of meeting WP:BIO.
- Google search for Chris Wooden yeilded 56 UNIQUE hits. There are other "Chris Woodens" on the web.
- Google search for "Christopher Wooden" yileded 52 UNIQUE hits. There are other "Christopher Wooden"s on the web.
- Google News gave me 9 hits about other "Christopher Wooden"s.
- Google News for "Chris Wood" yeilded about 50 hits. There is a more notable football player by the same name. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC
- Delete per nom and as possible hoax. The absence of media coverage is particularly suspicious for somebody who supposedly "made American History". EALacey 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can't find verification of anything in this article. --Metropolitan90 02:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not verifiable to reliable sources. What a cool beard the guy has got though...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Beardopedia. or Dev0. Martijn Hoekstra 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It'd be strange if Beardopedia actually existed. It'd have to include Robert Wyatt and Jimbo Wales.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's excellent research into the subject. Doctorfluffy 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation if reliable sources showing that they meet WP:MUSIC are found and used. Eluchil404 05:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cypher (band)[edit]
- Cypher (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), possible self-promotion. The band formed in 2002 and only has one full release. If this band is entitled to a Wikipedia entry there are over 5,000 other metal bands that would need an article as well. (not an exaggeration, see metal-archives.com) -RiverHockey 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - at present there are no independent sources and the article doesn't seem to have any proof of notability. Also, per RiverHockey's last comment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but needs more info and sources. This band did international tours, have been reviewed by dozens of Dutch, German and UK magazines.[1] I will work on it. Kameejl (Talk) 23:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, please do. I don't like deleting articles on European bands, but I prefer that such articles have better content and sourcing so that it's easier to tell the obvious spam apart from proper band articles. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to show notability. This link quoted above appears to give no evidence of touring, and the album reviews appear to be by non-notable sources - music blogs mostly. The article as it stands now doesn't show good enough reason for being on Wiki, and that is the article we are discussing. But there is nothing stopping anyone from writing the article up again after it has been deleted, if someone discovers better sources. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tijuana Brass 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher english[edit]
Non-notable individual. Article doesn't establish notability. Dr. Cash 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems like a speedy delete candidate. -RiverHockey 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per criterion A7 (biography with no indication of notability). Probably a well intentioned creation by a new user unfamiliar with our notability guidelines. I see the article itself already been tagged for speedy deletion. EALacey 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete seems right. No context, little content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources added, though some of them are trivial. Borderline case. PeaceNT 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spartak Tennis Club[edit]
- Spartak Tennis Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable tennis-club. fails WP:CORP and no sources are cited. notability is not inherited from the people who trained or taken a crap in the bathrooms. Law/Disorder 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if it trained all those famous players, it might have something written about it; but there's nothing given, so it fails the notability test. Nyttend 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I hadn't heard of it, and I thought it was a joke - this run down tennis court that is unused for half the year producing all those tennis stars. But a quick search showed that the place is well known and highly revered in the tennis community. I put in just three sources, but there are plenty more. And the Not Inherited doesn't apply to places which are sourced as being notable such as CBGB or Spartak Tennis Club, it applies to arguments used in AfD debates in which someone says "notability is not inherited from the people who trained or taken a crap in the bathrooms." And now that the article is sourced, it passes WP:CORP. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per silkytalk. Witty Lama 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili talk 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwight Davis Memorial Tennis Center[edit]
- Dwight Davis Memorial Tennis Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable tennis-center. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. Please note: notability is not inherited. Law/Disorder 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - I could find some mentions in the press for this location. I would think that a sports facility would have sufficient notability for some small page, no? I'll try and add a bit of content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I added some small amount of content, and 2 proper (though perhaps not high quality) sources, to back up the article topic's notability. I assume this'll get a relist, though, as nobody's been weighing in. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bakersfield(UK tv series)[edit]
- Bakersfield(UK tv series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources to establish that article is anything but something made up by the article creator, article even says only about 20 people have watched, earlier prod removed by article creator Davewild 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete clearly a hoax. Chris! ct 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It could be a hoax or possibly it's something on Youtube (or somewhere similar), but clearly it doesn't meet WP:N FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax or at the very least a variation of WP:NFT. 23skidoo 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as something whose hoaxiness or lack thereof isn't even evident in the article. Fails WP:N and WP:RS at present. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a plan, a desire, possibly, or mobile phone footage, possibly something made up in school one day, but hasn't yet made it to a UK TV channel. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The show doesn't exist. Its a hoax. Operating 10:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article itself states that only ~20 people have seen the programme, so definitely not notable, and most likely never been on television therefore. Perhaps a small-scale project by a hobbyist. Mouchoir le Souris 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harpenden Lawn Tennis Club[edit]
- Harpenden Lawn Tennis Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP. if claims that it has won important awards can be verified... but it makes the claim without sources. Law/Disorder 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - researched and added references, still could not justify notability or WP:CORP. MatthewYeager 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't remember why I created this article. I seem to recall that the Club was the oldest something or other in the UK, but I cannot now recall, and obviously I didn't at the time put in the article. On the face of it, I couldn't argue with deletion. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No apparent notability. Closest thing I could find was "one of the leading tennis clubs in the country". --Fang Aili talk 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indian Wells Tennis Garden[edit]
- Indian Wells Tennis Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. Law/Disorder 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I added references and rewrote. This location is the 2nd largest tennis stadium in the world, hosting many of the top 10 largest tennis tournaments in the world. please reassess nomination. MatthewYeager 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above comment - it's a major and very well-known tennis ground. IIRC it hosts at least one stop on the ATP and WTA tours. Edit: see Pacific Life Open --SesameballTalk 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Titans (Warcraft)[edit]
- Titans (Warcraft) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merge all into one massive Warcraft NPC article. It's no worse than other fancruft all over Wikipedia if it's consolidated. This vote goes for all the AfDs posted by IAmSasori that say "do not merge" but I'm far too lazy to post this in all the AfDs. Hansonc 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as appropriate, Keep as appropriate (i.e., if notable and supported). Was it really necessary to create some 40+ different AfDs when many during the combined AfD suggested either a keep or a merge? Surely simply relying on that is better than spamming AfD 40+ times? Consider this a keep/merge vote for each of these related 40+ AfDs; I certainly won't dignify spam with posting in each one. --SesameballTalk 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the other !votes I've made in the warcruft AfDs. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anduin Lothar[edit]
- Anduin Lothar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Characters from warcraft need not have their own pages due to obvious notability issues. Bobby1011 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, discounting invalid keep arguments below. --Coredesat 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirin Tor[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It needs to remain. Ok. The end.
DarthSidious 07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Keep - Include all pages Medivh, Tichondrius, Lady_Vashj, Velen_(World_of_Warcraft), Vol'jin, Malfurion_Stormrage, Sylvanas_Windrunner, Arthas Menethil and etc. And many other from Template:WarcraftBCharacter. How's that non-notable? If you did not hear about Warcraft that is your only problem! Also redir all pages I listen above to this page. --- DarthRahn(u/t\c) 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anub'arak[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It should remain here
DarthSidious 07:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archimonde[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptionally Strong Keep It's an essential part of the plot. Have you even played the game before? Please cease this frenzy this nominator is on.
DarthSidious 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Weak Keep There's a link to a third-party database, so it definitely doesn't violate WP:OR. Whether it is notable is another matter, and I'm not convinced either way at the moment, what with the game being the most famous computer game around, known among non-gamers and gamers alike. (yes, Archimonde is just a character inside the indisputably notable game; but he is a sufficiently major and recurring character that he might be considered notable in his own right) Sakkura 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arthas Menethil[edit]
- Arthas Menethil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I think a drive to delete all these Warcraft articles is a magnificently obnoxious contribution to deletionism, I'm fairly sure that this article is significant. Arthas is going to be the chief antagonist in the new expansion for World of Warcraft. He was the protagonist of Warcraft III. The character has had a significant impact on the Warcraft gameworld. I'd rate his importance similarly to that of Elminster in the Forgotten Realms fantasy world - a character whose actions span across several media and alter the fictional world.
Ah, screw it. Go on, delete Arthas. Nobody cares about Warcraft characters. But by God, I'd expect to see every single Pokemon critter entry, every single Final Fantasy character entry, every single Tolkien character entry deleted at the same time. Do I think these are all equivalent? Not really. But I'm sure that a complete stranger to the series wouldn't read about Electrike or Kefka or Barahir. Their articles violate "WP:Plot" and "WP:OR" and "WP:N" too. Well, not really, they don't. Not for a reasonable definition of the terms. But the AfD nominator clearly doesn't agree with a reasonable definition. So I say keep - unless you're planning on cutting every single fictional character's entry that doesn't have a third party source. Allandaros 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major character in a notable fictional universe, chief protagonist and chief antagonist of multiple games and novels. JavaTenor 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Fancruft Bobby1011 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. The article is entirely an in-universe plot summary. No indication of real-world context or notability. Google search returned a fair number of hits, but they seem to be limited to passing mention in videogame reviews/guides and fansites so it's unlikely this character has been covered substantially by sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy 07:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He is the main character in both WAR3 (its his face on the cover of TFT), and the second expansion of WoW. I'm going to have to go through all the other characters you've probably nominated as well.
DarthSidious 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Keep - Firstly, the article doesn't feature any fancruft/fanfiction or original research. Also, he is an important character in a famous fictional universe. So, if Doctor Doom, Emperor Palpatin or the Joker have articles, so can Arthas.Dimts 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me anything in this article that would pass WP:Plot. Ridernyc 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then maybe give people a chance to improve the article, rather than trying to nuke it (or would that, y'know, make sense?). Would you people be satisfied with novelizations Blizzard has in the Warcraft setting, aside from the computer games, or are those not enough? Allandaros 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had seen one ounce of effort by anyone to improve the warcrqaft articles I might agree. But through all these AFD's I have never seen anyone add a single source or rewrite a single sentence. I have also never seen any of the editors of these articles show that they have an grasp of policies. Ridernyc 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first nomination was over a year ago. shoy (words words) 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then maybe give people a chance to improve the article, rather than trying to nuke it (or would that, y'know, make sense?). Would you people be satisfied with novelizations Blizzard has in the Warcraft setting, aside from the computer games, or are those not enough? Allandaros 13:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are there any substantial third party publications written about this character? Yamaguchi先生 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly. I just added a link to an article in Games for Windows magazine which is largely about this character's role in the upcoming expansion. As this is among the best-selling PC games of all time, there's plenty of coverage of many different aspects of the game in the gaming press, various books, etc. JavaTenor 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Azshara[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. No information outside of in-universe story, doubtful that secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 07:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a "backstory" character who, as far as I can determine, does not feature in any games or novels set in the Warcraft universe. JavaTenor 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadlord[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This characters article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The idea that this article should be deleted is quite ridiculous
DarthSidious 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cairne Bloodhoof[edit]
- Cairne Bloodhoof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it should remain here.
DarthSidious 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Placeholder[edit]
- Captain Placeholder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Admiral Daelin Proudmoore[edit]
- Grand Admiral Daelin Proudmoore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not WoWWiki. JJL 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It deserves to stay here.
DarthSidious 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durotan[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elune[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garona Halforcen[edit]
- Garona Halforcen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grom Hellscream[edit]
- Grom Hellscream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. this article also has gameguide elements in it. Ridernyc 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major character in the Warcraft universe; has appeared in multiple games and books. JavaTenor 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 12:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - no comment needed, really.
DarthSidious 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gul'dan[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Important Character
DarthSidious 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illidan Stormrage[edit]
- Illidan Stormrage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He is one of the main characters in both Warcraft 3 and WOW, and almost all of the characters in these games have wiki articles for them (unless you've deleted them already). He definately should stay here.
DarthSidious 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaina Proudmoore[edit]
- Jaina Proudmoore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. This article also has gameguide elements in it. Ridernyc 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no comment needed, really
DarthSidious 07:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Keep - one of the main characters of the game. Fancruft/fanfiction and original research are absent. But I agree that the article needs more sources. Dimts 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kel'Thuzad[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs to remain
DarthSidious 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Khadgar[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kil'jaeden[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs to stay here.
DarthSidious 07:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Killrogg Deadeye[edit]
- Killrogg Deadeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King Terenas Menethil II[edit]
- King Terenas Menethil II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article should stay
DarthSidious 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maiev Shadowsong[edit]
- Maiev Shadowsong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A notable character from warcraft 3
DarthSidious 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malfurion Stormrage[edit]
- Malfurion Stormrage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - No comment required
DarthSidious 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- You might want to read policy because, yes a comment is required.Ridernyc 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mannoroth[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a pity that I have to spend this time attempting to rescue articles from you lot, rather than something more constructive
DarthSidious 07:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medivh[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ridernyc. Also, I really doubt secondary sources exist to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important Character.
DarthSidious 07:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neltharion[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ner'zhul[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's evident that the person nominating all these doesn't actually play Warcraft 3, and probably knows nothing about it.
DarthSidious 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nozdormu[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orgrim Doomhammer[edit]
- Orgrim Doomhammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reliable sources provided to establish notability. Mr.Z-man 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kael'thas Sunstrider[edit]
- Kael'thas Sunstrider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep; (a) try properly AfDing it, which is clearly described on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and does not involve moving the old page, and (b) if you're going to avoid a mass deletion, then avoid a mass deletion and treat each article distinctly. Don't post a bunch of reasons the article should be deleted and then state that they may not be relevant. Furthermore, the claim that a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all is wrong, given the number of times I've went to Wikipedia trying to understand an out-of-context quip someone made, and irrelevant. A complete stranger to English literature isn't going to try and look up Moby Dick. Someone not familiar with Australia isn't going to look up Robert Askin. Not every article in Wikipedia has to be for everyone.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft. Bobby1011 06:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of significant coverage from secondary sources to demostrate notability per WP:FICT. Also fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - These articles should not be deleted.
DarthSidious 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Strong Keep - one of the links leads to the official Warcraft site(!). Such as source can't be considered "secondary" Dimts 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rexxar[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes the Notability test
DarthSidious 07:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rhonin[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sargeras[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - important character.
DarthSidious 07:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Keep - one of the sources is the official site. Or perhaps official sites are not reliable? Dimts 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sen'jin[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No need to delete this article
DarthSidious 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shandris Feathermoon[edit]
- Shandris Feathermoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - needs to remain here
DarthSidious 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, most of the keep voters didn't give a valid reason. This is a Secret account 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sylvanas Windrunner[edit]
- Sylvanas Windrunner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For all the reasons as before. DarthSidious 07:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
HesitantKeep - The article is a god awful mess, but I believe it is notable enough on its own (major characters in TV shows meet the notability requirements so it only seems fitting that major characters in equally popular games do the same). Granted the article is a disaster right now but deleting it would set a precedent that would make it difficult to recreate it in proper form. As for it being OR, most, if not all of that information seems to be taken (although not properly referenced, from the various texts associated with the games and from actuall in-game mentions, cinematics, and so forth. Very little of it actually appears to be conjecture.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- read WP:WAF it expalins what is required for fiction. Even if sourcing was not an issue there is and I doubt there ever will any real world context in this article.Ridernyc 08:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Unless the article gets into some kind of "unrepairable" state, I believe it should remain as its own article. BassxForte 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced, poorly written fancruft which fails WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Bobby1011 06:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tichondrius[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable character. Axl 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he is a notable character —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthSidious (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyrande Whisperwind[edit]
- Tyrande Whisperwind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. This article also has elements of a gameguide. Ridernyc 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article should remain. Shows your passion - you've simply cut and past the same excuse for every War3 article!!
DarthSidious 07:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- Keep - see my post in Article for deletion/Arthas Menethil. Dimts 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uther the Lightbringer[edit]
- Uther the Lightbringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - is Wikipedia running out of space or something? These should not be deleted!
DarthSidious 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Vashj[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - deserves to stay here
DarthSidious 07:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vol'jin[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zul'jin[edit]
Please note that I do not nominate these articles together due to a previous trainwreck. It would be appreciated that you do NOT merge these Articles for deletions together, as the previous decision was to decide on the values of each article separately.
As there is a huge majority of articles that need to go through an AfD (literally over 100), the reasons listed may not be as relevant to this article as it would be another. Either way, they all appear to have the same problems and still must be noted to make a decision.
This character article appears to comprised of unsourced, unnotable, fancruft.
This article has little to no third-party sources, with usually the only source being on another wiki, a gaming site, or the Blizzard website.
This article is also not notable to non-Warcraft players, as chances are, a complete stranger to the series would not read this article at all, failing real-world notability.
Finally, this article is most likely fancruft, possibly created through original research. These are mostly unwelcome, continuing on the basis that non-players would have no interest in it.
This article is nominated individually to prevent another trainwreck from occurring while also allowing editors to individually decide which article should stay and which should go. The above reasons are as to why each of these articles should be deleted, whether they are completely relevant or hardly relevant. IAmSasori 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot and WP:OR, while the game Warcraft is notable. The fiction and characters within it are not. Ridernyc 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FICT, unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability, and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ritter Park Tennis Center[edit]
- Ritter Park Tennis Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable tennis-court club. fails WP:CORP and cites no sources. Law/Disorder 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emma tatham[edit]
No proof of 'notability'. AlexSloan 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Since the referenced book exists I'm going to go with notability met. Needs some serious cleanup since it appears to have been written by a high school student who liked her work but couldn't find her on Wikipedia. -Hansonc 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I dunno...something tells me that if she wasn't notable, there wouldn't be a company printing her book 148 years after it was written... Smashville 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She seems notable, and well sourced judging from the fact that the subject died near a century ago. Chris! ct 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She was notable at the time. She seems to have been the subject of at least two biographies shortly after her death (both to be found on Google Books). Matthew Arnold refers to her, unfavourably, in one of his essays and her work crossed the Atlantic, where the Methodist Review in 1855, in a backhanded compliment, said: "WE must give the praise of good intention, at least, to "The Dream of Pythagoras, and Other Poems, by EMMA TATHAM ... The rhymed portions of the volume are better than the blank verse". There are references out there, if anyone wants to expand the article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clearly not a hoax. This is a rare exception to Geogre's Law.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a hoax how? I didn't know Amazon.com was in the business of selling non-existent books...Smashville 15:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]Comment So that would mean that Matthew Arnold, who wrote about her less than a decade after her death and whose works, including that particular essay, have been the subject of much academic scrutiny was pulling a fast one? Look, there are many references to her out there if you look. 10 seconds searching got me a mention in the the Dublin University Magazine from 1855 here. Very definitely not a hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- If you check the history, you'll find that my comment was vandalised by an anon-IP.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indeed. Personal note on way. Honestly didn't think to check that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my misplaced original reply to HisSpaceResearch, as I was replying to a vandalized version of his comment. (But leaving the link intact). I'm suitably embarrassed. Sorry about that, HSR. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check the history, you'll find that my comment was vandalised by an anon-IP.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've un-vandalised my comment now, and no problem at all. Best not to feed the trolls and vandals too much - WP:DENY.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also redacted mine. I guess Assuming Good Faith does have its consequences...I never really thought someone would vandalize someone's comments... Smashville 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep definitely notable. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article asserts notabilty and has sources to back up notabilty claims in article. AngelOfSadness talk 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was hoax. DS 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis Phelps[edit]
Another hoax. Googling "Lewis Phelps" and WPVI together only pulls up this page and another hoax page. Smashville 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Moore (British Criminal)[edit]
- Jason Moore (British Criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete interesting, newsy, but ultimately not notable - so this guy models his criminality after some movie bad guy, the BBC pick it up as a gee-whiz item, that's a claim to notability? WP≠Wiki Policeblotter. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the news and this is really Chuck Shepherd material. Possibly worth a footnote in Freddy Krueger. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP is not the news. Not even worth a mention on the Freddy page. Operating 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - if multiple news agencies cover the same subject, that still doesn't mean that it's notable, just the same thing told over and over again.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This should be included in the Freddy page and referenced at the bottom.209.91.61.223 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shai Cherry[edit]
Lack of Notability Prof. Cherry is an innovative junior scholar. Perhaps someday he will be notable. Currently, however, he is among many emerging yet not-yet-notable scholars. HG | Talk 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Defo not notable by any measure at the moment. Give him 40 years. scope_creep 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete insufficiently notable. JJL 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the article lists three sources, two of which are posted articles on MyJewishLearning.com, that turn out to be excerpts from ""Three twentieth-century Jewish responses to evolutionary theory," in Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism (Magnes Press)." & "Three Twentieth-Century Jewish Responses to Evolutionary Theory," Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism, 2003 (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)." which seem therefore to be two different excerpts from the same article in the journal Aleph (which is " an international peer reviewed annual journal, devoted to the exploration of the interface between Judaism and science in history" according tho their website). I think these two references are really one, I've edited the article accordingly. Pete.Hurd 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete one chapter in a contributed volume, and one peer reviewed paper, and no real demonstration of an impact on academic thought. I don't think this passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 03:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
White Star (cider)[edit]
- White Star (cider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete no indication that the cider in this one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know the brewery who makes this cider, and I think it's been making it for over 200 years. I think the article should be heavily expanded.... scope_creep 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see WP:IKNOWIT. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment er ... apparently you can only get there via WP:IDONTKNOWIT but it covers both concepts. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I created WP:IKNOWIT just right here and now as a redirect.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find much beyond teh ratebeer page, with one vote. Not even the apparent brand owner actually has a page on it. I wasn't able to turn up anything substantial in Google News Archive, either. Even if it's venerable, there's no evidence it's Wikipedia-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I actually bought a bottle of this once (it is sold in co-op stores in the UK), and it tasted disgusting, as the ratebeer reviewer seems to agree - it's a very cheap brand of white cider and is probably drunk mainly by alcoholics, students and people living on benefits. I say weak delete unless sources are provided. At the moment, it's a substub and could be deleted for lacking context, speedily.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom, would keep if article were expanded and better-sourced AndalusianNaugahyde 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Axl 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Warcraft organizations[edit]
- List of Warcraft organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability, appears to be pure gamecruft, and is badly unsourced.
This use is most likely not going to be much use or even glanced at by a non-player of the Warcraft series, failing notability.
It appears to be cruft that may also be emerging with original research.
One final important note is that there are no sources whatsoever on the article.
There doesn't seem to be much use of this article besides to Warcraft players. IAmSasori 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:Plot, also orgianl reaserch with no references. Ridernyc 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utter fancruft. Bobby1011 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly violates WP:NOT#PLOT without providing real-world context or significance. Unlikely any secondary source has devoted significant coverage to any of these groups so WP:FICT cannot be satisfied. Doctorfluffy 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Fordham[edit]
Yet another former parliamentary candidate. There are thousands of such candidates in elections around the globe. Timrollpickering 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The chap isn't an MP, just a researcher. Clearly not notable. So delete. scope_creep 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice toward recreation if he should run again and be elected. Nyttend 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, almost certainly fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Blu-ray Discs[edit]
- List of Blu-ray Discs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Originally listed at CAT:CSD, but fails to meet any specific criteria. However, such a list would be exceedingly long and of little encyclopedic value - it would be comparable to "List of 8 tracks" or "List of television shows". Also includes List of HD DVDs. Delete Tijuana Brass 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blu-ray Discs may be relatively new but there's nothing particularly special about movies that use them. It will be too broad to be a maintainable list. Spellcast 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not just un-encyclopedic, but useless - unless you wanted to own all the Blu-ray discs published ever. A simple search on an online shopping site would generate the same list, with more useful features. -- Emana 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - When Blu-Ray finally dies as a format I might vote to keep but until then it's going to be pretty much impossible to maintain. Hansonc 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Its a list, available in every serious website dealing with HD. Perhaps keeping the first 5, would be more important. scope_creep 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I hope the format does fail (like every other format Sony has created), there is the possibility that it might not and this list would become huge (imagine if someobody tried to this with DVDs, the US alone gets over 100 new DVDs every week). The list would become even bigger if PlayStation 3 games were added (since they are all on Blu-ray Discs). TJ Spyke 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essentially an endless list. Chris! ct 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Premature for this sort of list. If Blu-Ray wins the format war, then every release will be Blu-Ray. The list could have tens of thousands of titles. If, on the other hand, it goes the way of Beta, then a list of the limited-number of releases would be a viable idea. But not at this stage of the game. Ditto HD-DVD. 23skidoo 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as both lists, the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are deleted, then Delete. Ank329 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with Chris!. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zafar Ansari[edit]
Fails to meet Athlete's Bio notability criteria as player in junior league, also lack of secondary sources SkierRMH 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is a joke. I can't understand why speedy was declined. -- Magioladitis 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oos[edit]
Looks like vanispamcruftisement. No third party sources. No claim of notability. The article is just a list of features and to-do's. Previosly prodded. De-prodded without substantive change or comment. -- Ben 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep If that's WP:VSCA I'd like to see more cruft articles that well written. -Hansonc 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know... you are probably right. It probably doesn't qualify as WP:VSCA. It reads like ad to me. Since you didn't comment on the lack of sources and lack of notability, does that mean that you agree that they aren't there and that the article's subject doesn't meet WP:N? -- Ben 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Problem is that it doesn't have much exposure, so going on WP:N and WP:WEB, I'd have to say no. Not every software project is notable, sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, advertisement, probably coi as creators only edits have been to this page and a relating image: Special:Contributions/Habam2004. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OSborn. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not the kind of company that has the notablity to be on Wikipedia. Also looks like an ad. Captain panda 03:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Couldn't find any third party reliable sources discussing it, so it does not (yet, at least) appear notable enough. Hal peridol 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of people nicknamed "The King"[edit]
- List of people nicknamed "The King" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Indiscriminate list and trivial intersection. Spellcast 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all people considered the best on what they do, and nicknamed The King of, for many years. It is interesting for many people, I can see a similarity with People known as the father or mother of something.--Xocoyote 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an appropriate, encyclopedic, or meaningful subject for a stand alone list according to WP:SAL. Subdolous 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I considered putting this up for AfD, but you beat me to it. This is an indiscriminate list, and it should be deleted. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. Chris! ct 22:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with The King (disambiguation page). I fail to see why this list was created in the first place, as it is the disambiguation pages that are usually spammed with such mentions. – sgeureka t•c 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate, or re-work to a dab page if that seems useful (I do not think it would be). JJL 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AndalusianNaugahyde 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pointless page Hammer1980·talk 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by The-G-Unit-Boss as a copyright violation. --Coredesat 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube Video Downloader[edit]
- Youtube Video Downloader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There is some usefull content in this article, but in it's present form it has no place in Wikipedia. Some extensive reworking could make it comparison of Youtube video download tools? Martijn Hoekstra 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic non-notable original research.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Stuff like this belongs on software sites like downloads.com.--Cartman005 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE This is a copyright violation! It is a direct lift from http://mashable.com/2007/05/05/download-youtube-video/ Group29 15:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili talk 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Millennium Villages Project[edit]
- Millennium Villages Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Disputed speedy, reposted. Originally speedy deleted as 'blatant advertising'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Its a really crappy article, but the organisation itself is part of the UN Millenium Project and Columbia University effort to end poverty in Africa using an multi pronged strategy. The article needs to be extensively improved, but defo keep. 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
- Keep For all the same reasons as Scope creep including crappy writing dig. Hansonc 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Scope creep, needs significant cleanup. Subdolous 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to original poster's namespace for re-write. It still reads like a promotional piece. -- Emana 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aside from the crappy wording, the article does not assert its subject's notability, and I'm not inclined to believe it has any. Bobby1011 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact that it's a UN/Columbia University joint project, doesn't that make it notable in your mind? By the way I've added links to the official websites for someone to base a cleanup on. Millennium_Villages_Project#External_Links Hansonc 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited. That is to say that the parent organisations are not important here. The subject must stand on its own two feet. I don't think it can. Bobby1011 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since searching for Wikipedia rules is like searching for a needle in a haystack is there a rule that states "your lack of knowledge about a topic does not mean it's non-notable"?... If there is I would like to cite that here... if not, well there should be. -Hansonc 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you're looking for WP:IDONTKNOWIT. In any case it's not up to me or any other reader to know anything about this project. It's the responsibility of the editor who created it to show that they have actually done the work to verify that what they read on the internet about this organisation is true. That means real sources. Third party ones. That independently assert the notability of the articles subject. At the moment the article is not convincing me that it is anything more than another group/think tank/lobby(the articles actually describes it as an "approach") that has not, as of yet, amounted to anything. If you wish to assert future notability then there is a place and time for that: the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was actually kidding about the lack of knowledge rule but it's nice to see that it exists :-) This brings me to my major problem with Wikipedia'a AfD process. It's easier to get valid articles such as this deleted than it is to save them. This is obviously a real program, backed by the UN and Columbia University which is worthy of a better Wikipedia article than it has but because people find it easier to just delete articles than to fix them, here we are arguing about if it should be in Wikipedia or not. -Hansonc 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My problem with what you seem to be saying is that the program is notable because its two parent organisations are. Was it featured in any mainstream news? Has it accomplished any notable goals for which there are reliable third party sources? If yes, then list them as references. Bobby1011 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was actually kidding about the lack of knowledge rule but it's nice to see that it exists :-) This brings me to my major problem with Wikipedia'a AfD process. It's easier to get valid articles such as this deleted than it is to save them. This is obviously a real program, backed by the UN and Columbia University which is worthy of a better Wikipedia article than it has but because people find it easier to just delete articles than to fix them, here we are arguing about if it should be in Wikipedia or not. -Hansonc 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe you're looking for WP:IDONTKNOWIT. In any case it's not up to me or any other reader to know anything about this project. It's the responsibility of the editor who created it to show that they have actually done the work to verify that what they read on the internet about this organisation is true. That means real sources. Third party ones. That independently assert the notability of the articles subject. At the moment the article is not convincing me that it is anything more than another group/think tank/lobby(the articles actually describes it as an "approach") that has not, as of yet, amounted to anything. If you wish to assert future notability then there is a place and time for that: the future, because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bobby1011 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since searching for Wikipedia rules is like searching for a needle in a haystack is there a rule that states "your lack of knowledge about a topic does not mean it's non-notable"?... If there is I would like to cite that here... if not, well there should be. -Hansonc 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We would like to obtain some knowledge, if you can find some references that document it other than the projects own website. DGG (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StarCraft map[edit]
- StarCraft map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. It is almost game guide in its writing style and content, has no references and fails notability guidelines as all attempts by me to find a single reliable source to reference it failed. In addition, it is not linked to by anything but one user page and two redirects. I argue that the subject is not notable and the problem here is not surmountable, so the article should be deleted. Sabre 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge This is maps for the main game article. The main article is too big to contain this article, I would suggest tidy up and keep. scope_creep 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is in no way part of the main game article, its guide information on various maps, consisting entirely of unverified original research. This has no place in the game article or anywhere on Wikipedia. The information cannot by tidied up because it has no notability. -- Sabre 23:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, no sources at all let alone reliable ones, tagged since February. Would happily move to keep or merge to StarEdit if sources are found.Someone another 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy 06:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect. The target article seems to require better referencing than currently exists for this term, so the people suggesting merger below will need to look into this. W.marsh 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paki shop[edit]
This page was speedily deleted in September, although it did not validly meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. I asked for this to be restored so that it goes through a full AfD process. As for the article itself, I think a merge of any sourcable content and redirect to the "Paki" section of List of ethnic slurs would be the best option. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge I agree. Its a valid article, but defo merge with slur article. scope_creep 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the "Paki" section of List of ethnic slurs per nom, and merge any sourcable/non-redundant content to there or to Convenience store. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - as the admin who deleted it, I agree with this. ELIMINATORJR 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely not a valid article. If you're going to include "Paki shop" you may as well include "redneck bar", for example. The term "Paki" on it's own doesn't even have it's own page, and just redirects to "List of ethnic slurs". Furthermore, "Paki shop" isn't even a widely used term in itself. Search Google for it and you'll only find 547 instances of it. There are multiple different variations of what they might call a shop owned by someone of South Asian descent, such as "The Paki's" being much more common where I live, and others such as "Paki store", "the Paki tip" etc. The content just describes the origin of the racial slur "Paki", which is already covered in the list of ethnic slurs and the description of what a "Paki shop" sells is just that of a convenience store. I think it should just be removed outright like it was before, or it should redirect to the List of ethnic slurs. It's a really stupid article and doesn't deserve a place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impulsion (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect. I'm undecided whether it would be better merged into List of ethnic slurs or Convenience store, but it should go into one or other of those. Definately shouldn't continue to exist in its own right. --AliceJMarkham 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect & Merge, per Iain99. Redirect to list of ethnic slurs and salvage content to convenience store. Witty Lama 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saavedro[edit]
Violates WP:Plot no real world context and no notabilty outside of the myst franchise. Ridernyc 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom and as failing WP:OR and WP:RS, even though I'm a wicked great fan of Brad Dourif. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine (Myst)[edit]
- Catherine (Myst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Plot no references, notability outside the myst franchise. Ridernyc 19:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge There is a whole list of myst characters. This should be merged into a suitable character list article. Its a waste of resources scope_creep 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it should be noted that during the last round of Myst deletions most articles were voted to be merged. However since the articles are entirely original research with no references nothing was there to be merged so, basically the articles were deleted. Ridernyc 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and it's unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, it's impossible to establish notability per WP:N with any amount of rewriting or cleanup. Doctorfluffy 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doo World Order[edit]
- Doo World Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I'm not especially familiar with wrestling, so I can't determine if any of the claims made in this article attest to notability. Article also fails to include any sources. JavaTenor 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A wrestling clique in a backyard wrestling federation? I think CSD A7 comes into play here. Wildthing61476 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google laid an egg - no hits for Doo World Order, though some Scooby Doo World items popped up. None of the wrestling sites I know of mention a thing about any clique or stable with this name. WP:HOAX may apply, but WP:V and WP:RS are sufficient for deletion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD A7 | WP:N | WP:HOAX | WP:RS I was unable to find any references in an attempt to keep the article as well. MatthewYeager 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Denneny[edit]
Taken from the talk page, as I think it sums up the article best: "This person does not appear to meet notability standards because he is merely a declared candidate for Congress and has not actually won that office, and has not otherwise met notability criteria. It's a borderline case, though, which is why I did not immediately nominate this for deletion. Moreover, the article is written like a news release and had issues with neutral points of view. If these issues persist, I will eventually nominate this for deletion." - User:Realkyhick. I don't think he's notable, so I prodded the article and invited Reallyhick to PROD2. This AFD is a result of the prod being disputed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commander Denneny is one of the few airmen to earn the distinguished flying cross with a V for valor. He is also the most senior fighter pilot to criticize the Iraq War. In addition, he is expected to win his party's nomination in what will prove to be one of the most contested elections of the 08 cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone interested in Denneny due all the blog coverage of him, I think this article is perfectly acceptable. How he has grounds for deletion as a top fighter pilot with a noteworthy career and new political presence makes no sense to me. If problems due to 'point of view' are present, lets get them edited and be done with it. Deletion of an article based on one person's opinion over if Denneny is a big enough figure for wikipedia seems ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom55 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) The aforementioned user has made few edits to Wikipedia, and appears to be a single-purpose account.[reply]
- 'Comment - Please see WP:N. It's nopt opinion that's the issue here, it's rules and guidelines that have already been set out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article, I think written by himself, but it is notable. He's all over the web like a rash. Article needs de-poved, sources, category, wikied, the loot. scope_creep 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should stay posted. As mentioned above there has been a lot of coverage of Denneny on the web, so we need an entry. Just keep it neutral and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msternbe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being a candidate for a WP:BIO office by itself does not qualify under WP:BIO. Being a successful commander, even winning a few medals, is also not notability (just look at the Ds for the DFC). There isn't consensus that the Congressional Medal of Honor equals inherent notability, let alone the DFC. In any case, the article is terrible; Wikipedia is not a host for campaign brochures. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the discussion about notability is a worthy one. It is my assertion that he is notable enough, and that this article will provide a resource (outside of campaign website, which in nature is clearly not neutral) for folks who want to know more about important races in 2008. That aside, the article is certainly not a campaign brochure: it states no platforms or positions. If it is written terribly, I urge you to edit it and improve it. That's the point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, listen carefully here: he doesn't meet the required standards already set out for notability. Asserting that he is notable enough in your opinion is all very well and good, but he doesn't meet the requirements set out at WP:BIO. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the discussion about notability is a worthy one. It is my assertion that he is notable enough, and that this article will provide a resource (outside of campaign website, which in nature is clearly not neutral) for folks who want to know more about important races in 2008. That aside, the article is certainly not a campaign brochure: it states no platforms or positions. If it is written terribly, I urge you to edit it and improve it. That's the point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - I'd agree that simply being a declared candidate for office is insufficient notability - especially when oh, so many candidates for political office are using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. I'd also suggest someone with more Wikismarts than me check the accompanying photos to ensure they meet Wikipedia's open-source content guideline (or whatever it is we care about). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The American DFC seems to be 6 levels of precedence down from the Medal of Honor, less prestigious than the British version. The rest of his achievements don't seem to be notable enough either. Clarityfiend 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is repeatedly being vandalised by the people above who have voted to keep it. The AfD template is consistently removed, and no action has been taken to improve the article as suggested. This would lead me to believe that it's either a vanity article, a non-notable article, or both. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - or, that it's a cynical attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium instead of caring the slightest bit about the rules around here. If so, does that up this to a speedy delete? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danny vendramini[edit]
- Danny vendramini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Can this be saved? I am not a scientist, so i cannot save it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I added the only 2 references i could find to the article. Mr. Vendramini's paper, which is his original research (if you want to see what his theory is). I'm leaning towards delete due to WP:N and lack of WP:RS, Yet feel best to have this review by someone else with knowledge in the area. I could only find his own site and 1 news site that interviewed him, no 3rd party confirmation to remove blatant WP:OR MatthewYeager 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not original thought as it has been published and his paper is linked to by the article. It is however not notable. I am both an Australian and in the field, and I have never come accross this paper or any of its proponents. This is particularly significant since the idea's creator (like any idea that opposes natural selection as the ONLY method of evolution) fails to fully understand the absolute scope of modern selection theory. That is, that any change is only successful if it is favorable. In any case the idea is too far outside the scope of main stream science to garner any notability in that respect, and it is also absent from the popular press. Bobby1011 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a Secret account 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DISCover[edit]
Reads like an advertisement, no sources cited, however the topic does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications. Is this software notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article? GTBacchus(talk) 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability can be established. Subdolous 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Noor Aalam 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the original posters comment of "the topic does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications." If a gaming console that's discussed by gaming publications doesn't meet wp:nn it's time to fix wp:nn. My general opinion is that if the niche crowd (in this case gaming publications) finds the topic notable it is notable. Leave notability to the experts not the unwashed masses :-) Hansonc 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hence the "unless notability can be established." The sources need to be presented. A statement by a wikipedia user that it "does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications" is not a secondary source. Subdolous 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True that. My comment was based on some extremely cursory googling. The question is whether there's enough coverage in gaming publications to support an article. Is this article from GameSpot a reliable source, for instance? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hence the "unless notability can be established." The sources need to be presented. A statement by a wikipedia user that it "does seem to be discussed in various gaming publications" is not a secondary source. Subdolous 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Hansonc. 132.205.99.122 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, need sources integrated. I remembered this er, console from a few years ago getting coverage from PC gaming places. I took several minutes to search for sources: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6] (though it's an editorial-like piece by the CEO), [7] (Press release of their partnership with firingsquad.com) all with Googling "discover gaming," "discover console," and "discover firingsquad." These should be considered for integration into the article and the article neutered from any promotional tone. There are a few smaller "future tech" mentions of DISCover in various reliable sources; I'm not sure if they can be considered though. --CRiyl 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Almost every HP Media Center PC now comes with this software. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 03:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snugpak. A menion of the item will be included in the Snugpak article. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snugpak RocketPak[edit]
- Snugpak RocketPak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. It's a backpack, and that's about it. No evidence or assertion of notability, only source is the manufactuters' website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Snugpak and mention there. As a company Snugpak is definitely notable, but there's just not much to be said about individual backpack models on an encyclopedia level. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything sourceable and redirect as above. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Bateman[edit]
- Michael Bateman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD; in the PROD summary, I wrote "No evidence of notability. Main claim to fame, 'Portable media operating system', gets 5 google hits that aren't copies of this article or of the patent application." These reasons still apply. An anon editor argued on the article talk page that it should be kept, giving reasons that -- if anything -- strengthen the case for deletion. Delete. SparsityProblem 18:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nominated: Portable media operating system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this and Portable Media Operating System as well. Neither seems to have any notability at all. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neither shows any notability at all. Bateman clearly fails WP:BIO. The first two sources are letters written by Rob Tidwell, who's name is surprisingly similar to the creator of the article, too. The Portable Media Operating System only has 22 Google hits. Jauerback 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it fails WP:BIO scope_creep 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and above Weathermandan 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability assertion--Zingostar 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which notability assertion is that? SparsityProblem 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 block article creator. DS 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Rhodes[edit]
Seems to violate WP:HOAX. Creator has created several hoax pages such as this one. Smashville 17:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Station purportedly employing her does not appear to exist. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I first thought this was probably real, and that her current station was merely a typo. However, I don't see anything remotely resembling it listed on this site or this article. I also can't find anything in Google about a Carly Rhodes with keywords of "anchor" or "Tyler" except this article. Jauerback 19:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Evans (journalist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Williams (journalist) Jauerback 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all the information is unverifiable. Google searching does not turn up a Carly Rhodes matching the one in the article. -- Whpq 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Chioji[edit]
Fails WP:BIO, not notable outside her area Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete local notability only. JJL 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 06:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryu sei ken[edit]
Tagged for notability for 20 days, no assertion of notability, no references. Bradford44 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not notable, minimal content --Nate1481( t/c) 17:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. JJL 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overrated[edit]
The article is not encyclopedic, it is in fact a vanity page done as an homage to a former guild from World of Warcraft. The guild was banned for exploiting a bug, and a few articles were written about the exploit. Those articles are being used as a justification for the existence of this page even though the articles have little or nothing to say about the guild itself. The only information that might be arguably notable (if you consider the few sources for it) would be the exploit itself, but that would exist in a different article about the exploit specifically. -- Atamasama 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Atamasama has been WP:CANVASsing: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain how this is WP:CANVASsing. Fangz the Wolf 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (from WP:CANVAS "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" (opening section) under "types of canvassing" it "says" that if a message is biased, it is considered disruptive canvassing. Atama's message implied that he needed a force of people to fight against the "fanboys" who will vote to keep it. So he was requesting people to come for a "delete" vote. McKay 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, he didn't purpose the article to be deleted, he just signed it up to be AFD. I purposed it. Fangz the Wolf 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mckay, by what you posted "canvassing" is composed of multiple postings trying to get people to influence the outcome. I posted one request in the WoW main article where a deletion for this page was discussed to let people know that this article was being put up for AfD. Why did I mention fanboys? Because I was informed that the polite request I'd put in to have this article reviewed by an admin was deleted by a former guildmember, and so I expected to have a biased response against the AfD. The irony is that the only multiple postings I've put about this article were on talk pages of people who have worked on this article to give them a chance to defend it out of courtesy. Including your talk page. -- Atamasama 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, he didn't purpose the article to be deleted, he just signed it up to be AFD. I purposed it. Fangz the Wolf 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (from WP:CANVAS "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" (opening section) under "types of canvassing" it "says" that if a message is biased, it is considered disruptive canvassing. Atama's message implied that he needed a force of people to fight against the "fanboys" who will vote to keep it. So he was requesting people to come for a "delete" vote. McKay 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please explain how this is WP:CANVASsing. Fangz the Wolf 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable group, no real assertions of notbility at ALL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Somewhat ironic that something named "overrated" is being removed for, well, just that. Subdolous 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- [see below] I'm sure this has been up before. In any case, I am not a WoW player, I hate WoW for stealing all my friends, but this is notable. The guild recieved online coverage for their cheating, and sources are linked at the bottom, as well as copied out on the talk page in case the link goes dead. In accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, a case could be made for renaming this article to Overrated cheating controversy or something, but the article should certainly be kept. J Milburn 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Rename or Merge. As clear from the provided references, the exploit is what is notable - not the guild or group of players that carried it out. The article should either be renamed to reflect the exploit or merged into an appropriate article. --SesameballTalk 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing notable here. Its essentially a vanity page.The guild isn't notable, the exploit is not notable, the members are not notable, nor even the fact that some were banned. Wow members are banned everyday for a variety of reasons including exploiting. Even the exploit itself certainly is not notable even within the specialized realm of exploits, let alone a general encylopedia. If wiki were to have an article about every minor computer exploit, it would resemble a technical journal more so than an encylopedia. I don't even think this is worth a few sentences on the general World of Warcraft page. Dman727 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources. What are your notability criteria? J Milburn 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is the notability criteria.Dman727 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it passes WP:N. If you think it doesn't maybe you should try explaining why you think it doesn't. McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it will help if I point out what part of WP:N would apply here. It states that Wikipedia is concerned with long-term notability. Something that seems notable on a short-term basis is suited better for Wikinews than Wikipedia. This is the criteria for an independent article. In other words, even if you only consider the exploit and not the guild it still lacks enough long-term notability to have its own page, but you might perhaps add the exploit information to a page about online game cheating. -- Atamasama 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it passes WP:N. If you think it doesn't maybe you should try explaining why you think it doesn't. McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is the notability criteria.Dman727 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources. What are your notability criteria? J Milburn 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've still yet to see a notable, encyclopedic article on an online-game guild... and this isn't one either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's interesting how the deleters assume anything about a videogame can't be notable. "Let's delete Fragdolls too!" The topic clearly passes WP:N because it
passes WP:N. It's got several independent articles about it. Sure, maybe they're all about one event. If you want, feel free to Rename the article to the event covering the banning. Maybe the article isn't written very well, maybe it needs some cleanup, removing vanity, sure. But there's nothing wrong with the presence of some of this content in Wikipedia. McKay 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment The article passes WP:N because it passes WP:N?? That is not a valid reasoning. Chris! ct 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Fragdolls aren't a WoW guild whose 5 seconds of fame were from getting banned and ending up with a brief mention on 3 gaming news sites. Please, assume good faith, don't start accusing the editors of trying to purge videogame information from Wikipedia when most of us are regular contributors to game pages (World of Warcraft in particular). -- Atamasama 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sutiable for Wikipedia, seems unimportant. Fangz the Wolf 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the Overrated banning scandal was barely 15 minutes of fame even in the World of Warcraft, it's certainly not real-world notability suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:N, mostly a unreferenced vanity page. This does not belong in wikipedia. --Fogeltje 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People keep saying things like "Delete per WP:N" and while such arguments should generally be avoided WP:VAGUEWAVE, there are people who have specifically mentioned that it does pass WP:N. I guess it needs to be explained in more detail. From WP:N:
- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
- "Presumed": It doesn't fail WP:NOT. No problems with that there. Maybe people are meaning something like this, but then, it wouldn't be a problem with WP:N, it would be a problem with some other guideline (like WP:NOT).
- "Significant Coverage": Gamespot, softpedia, and WoW insider (aka joystiq) all give significant coverage to the event. Yes, it may just be the event that's notable. I'm admitting that. In such a case a Rename would be necessary.
- "Reliable" Gamespot and Joystiq are considered excellently-reliable sources in the video game world. WoW insider, even more so in the WoW world. Admittedly, I haven't heard of softpedia, but I think the case is strong without it.
- "Sources" There are multiple, secondary, high-quality sources
- "independent" they are all objective, indepdendent sources, with no leaps of analysis.
- Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone says, "Delete, fails WP:N" they'd better have a good reason, because it seems very clear to me that it passes WP:N. McKay 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You completely ignored my explanation above, Mckay. I suggest you read it. Essentially, an article must have long-term notability to justify its existence, all cited news sources for this article were published within 2 days of each other. Allow me to quote from WP:N:
- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
- -- Atamasama 07:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Atama, I understand your perspective, but you must understand that the policy says that such events could be notable or not. There's nothing in WP:N that states that the topic isn't notable, but merely that it's possible it isn't notable. You can vote, state an opinion clearly that you think that because it was a short burst, it wasn't notable. Your opinion is valid, Stating "fails WP:N" is not entirely correct. McKay 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not just my opinion. Take a look at WP:NOT for further discussion:
Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.
- There has to be something really special about this subject for it to be worth having its own article despite a lack of long-term notability. Nobody has demonstrated anything but the opposite in this discussion. -- Atamasama 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my 'vote' to delete. I'm convinced- there is no lasting notability, as far as I can see. Unless someone can find a mention of the guild from either before or a fair while after the banning, then this should go as having no lasting notability. J Milburn 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlton Dotson[edit]
- Carlton Dotson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
He's a college kid who murdered someone and went to Jail. It was newsworthy, and we've got sources from newspapers, but I can't find evidence of any enduring significance beyond that. (If someone can fine). This isn't encyclopedic - we are not a database dump for yesterday's news. -Docg 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Would be notable per WP:BIO anyways as a "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Also, this wasn't an average murder case that got a few blurbs in local press. This was a situation that recieved COPIOUS coverage in national news and print media, including ESPN and other sources. While I would agree that most murders are not in-and-of-themselves notable, this single one appears to be. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how "highest level" includes a college team? And where are the secondary sources relating to his sports notability? --Docg 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Division I basketball is the highest level of amateur competition...there are already verifiable secondary sources in the article. But seriously...if that's the only thing you can come up with...Speedy Keep. This case was extremely notable, there are almost 4,000 google news hits for it from just about every media outlet you can name. Smashville 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how "highest level" includes a college team? And where are the secondary sources relating to his sports notability? --Docg 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject has some notability beyond a single event covered in the media (in this case, the murder). If coverage is limited to that murder, though, we need to cover the event - not the person - per WP:BLP1E. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence of notability beyond the event?--Docg 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence of a lack of notability? Why does he have to be notable outside of the event? Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey Dahmer and David Berkowitz weren't notable outside of their murders. JonBenet Ramsey is only notable for being murdered. He was the subject of major national press for at least 3 years. Smashville 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down. I'm willing to be convinced here. There are as it stands NO SOURCES in the article that show he'd be a notable athlete even if he'd not been murdering people. If they exist, I'll withdraw the nomination. Oswald etc are bad comparisons. They were and are continually discussed in serious literature decades later. The murders were notable not just for the murders but the ongoing impact, investigations, court cases, etc. All will be in books of significant murders for all eternity. Indeed any history of America will mention Oswald at least, and a history of crime likely to cite Manson. There's no evidence of that in this case. I'm willing to be convinced. Can you show some cultural impact, legal or investigative breakthrough, something to show this isn't just yesterday's news. As I say, I am truely willing to be convinced.--Docg 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not he was a notable athlete is irrelevant. That's not the primary source of his notability...However, per WP:BIO, "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" is generally notable. NCAA DI is the highest level of amateur basketball in the United States. Virtually all of the secondary sources refer to him as a "former Baylor basketball player". As for the murderers I used, I only used those as they were the most prominent. "Yesterday's news" is also known as history. The burden is on you to show why an article with significant coverage in at least 4,000 reliable secondary sources is not notable. Smashville 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down. I'm willing to be convinced here. There are as it stands NO SOURCES in the article that show he'd be a notable athlete even if he'd not been murdering people. If they exist, I'll withdraw the nomination. Oswald etc are bad comparisons. They were and are continually discussed in serious literature decades later. The murders were notable not just for the murders but the ongoing impact, investigations, court cases, etc. All will be in books of significant murders for all eternity. Indeed any history of America will mention Oswald at least, and a history of crime likely to cite Manson. There's no evidence of that in this case. I'm willing to be convinced. Can you show some cultural impact, legal or investigative breakthrough, something to show this isn't just yesterday's news. As I say, I am truely willing to be convinced.--Docg 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence of a lack of notability? Why does he have to be notable outside of the event? Charles Manson, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey Dahmer and David Berkowitz weren't notable outside of their murders. JonBenet Ramsey is only notable for being murdered. He was the subject of major national press for at least 3 years. Smashville 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence of notability beyond the event?--Docg 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I honestly don't even understand how this comes up for deletion. Sorry Doc, but lack of personal knowledge on the topic does not make the topic non-notable. - Hansonc 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per reasons above. the murder is notable, and technically, whether he committed a murder or not, he is notable as he performed at the "highest level in amateur sports" although that needs to be sourced. and yes I'm well aware and have had countless discussions about how many people this means there could be a wikipedia article on. But..as it has been said wikipedia is not paper. Barsportsunlimited 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although I would move to 2007 Baylor basketball murder or similar and merge the victim in as well. Neither player was a particular standout even if both had prospects. There was heavy media attention as Division I college players almost never murder one another. But the case arguably was important just as much for the fallout, which included recruiting irregularities that were uncovered, leading Baylor to face NCAA suspension known as the "death penalty" (they barely escaped) and put themselves on three years' probation. The case spurred discussion about gun ownership on campuses as well as the NCAA rule about one-year scholarships, which put pressure on players and lead to transfers and less oversight/mentoring/etc. These aspects didn't subside entirely until 2005 or so. (Sorry, I had links for each of the above, but lost my post.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richard F. Costigan[edit]
- Richard F. Costigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced sub-stub for a blp prof; no assertion that he meets WP:PROF, WP:BIO, just nn - so nn that we don't know when or where he was born, red flags of nn for modern bios Carlossuarez46 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7 (no assertions of notability), A1 (no context). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. I tried to distinguish between this cleric and a number of others with similar names; I could only find one scholarly article that he may have written and it was behind a paywall. Doesn't seem to meet WP:Verifiable and/or WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search for "Richard F. Costigan" brings up The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility as his most prominent book, which is easy to find. His other book Rohrbacher... appears to be translated into several languages. • Gene93k 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh, I have apparently misunderstood; I thought that this citation here was for a scholarly article in the Journal of Theological Studies behind a paywall. I take it that it's some sort of book review from what • Gene93k is saying, and now that I dig more deeply, I find another cite from a Norwegian site with an English description. My apologies for having misunderstood. I've withdrawn my deletion suggestion and I'm going to remain uncommitted in this discussion, because I couldn't find a scrap of biographical information about this individual (and partly because I feel a bit dim for having mistaken the citation; apparently I'm not understanding this sort of publishing history). But the Norwegian site also confirms that he's the author of "Rohrbacher and the Ecclesiology of Ultramontanism", if that helps anyone. Accounting4Taste 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Checking in Worldcat, I find "Consensus of the Church" in 156 libraries, and "Rohrbacher" in 114--I see no evidence of translations. This seems to be about as widespread interest as one could expect on thissort of topic. there seem to be 3 additional articles, of his, plus he has written 5 book reviews. There seems to be sat least 2 reviews o "Consensus" I think this is borderline. Two books is just enough to get someone tenure which is the meaning of an appointment as Associate Professor. Since that indicates acceptance by ones peers as a productive scholar, I can see including this level as notable. I don;t think that question is decided. DGG (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete having accomplished the minimum to obtain tenure doesn't equate to encylopedic notability, I don't think this passes WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pete.Hurd. WP:PROF guildelines have not been met. Doctorfluffy 05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. An associate professor in the humanities with two university-press published books is rather unremarkable per se. I should note that his "consensus" book does have reviews in Theological Studies and Irish Theological Quarterly, and his ultramontanism book has a review in Church History; the existence of these reviews is also unremarkable but does satisfy the requirement for nontrivial independent reliable sourcing. —David Eppstein 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. DGG's argument is compelling, and I think that Eppstein's findings place the subject above the "average professor" bar. But the article's subject clears the bar only barely and probably would not under any more strenuous tests (evidence of major award, etc.). For borderline cases such as these, I think we can take into account the quality of the article, its probability of future expansion, and loss to the world if it were removed. The article's prospects look bad under each of these three "tiebreakers," so I go with delete. If evidence of much greater notability is uncovered in the future, recreating the article in its current state or better would pose no problem to a future writer. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment . I agree that a really lousy article can condemn a good topic if nobody will fix it, but we should otherwise be judging the subject, not the article, as it is much easier to improve than to re-create. As for your other criteria, as the person is only still writing, there will most likely be another book; and there is almost no article in WP which would really individually be a loss to the world. DGG (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando de la Cruz[edit]
- Rolando de la Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability and no sources Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete de la DELETE. de la nom. Tiptopper 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have found no sources outside Wikipedia and WikiPilipinas. Instead, I found a Pinoy inventor of the same name that is much more notable.--Lenticel (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Poets of Hazara[edit]
- Famous Poets of Hazara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Deletion nomination Fails WP:LIST requirements, basically there are no standards for inclusion beyond "famous" and this requirement is unreferenced. No standards for inclusion makes this an indescriminate list, and this information could more adequately be handled by a category. Right now its just a red-link farm. I understand that these MAY be notable poets, but without sources, it is impossible to determine that yet. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if Hazara poetry is distinct enough within Pakistani poetry to merit individual treatment, this is more suited to a "poets from Hazara" category than a list. And it's not clear who counts as "famous". EALacey 17:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to List of Hazara poets or List of Hazara writers. Create parent article, Hazara poetry or Hazara literature. The topic is encyclopedic, even if the article/list is now ill-formed. Peter G Werner 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tannis Drysdale[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Tannis Drysdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Attempted speedy but was recreated. The subject of this article is truly non-notable, being a local councilperson and having a traffic violation hardly makes one a notable person. In addition, the subject wishes it be deleted, in spririt of do no harm. ^demon[omg plz] 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, wikipedia is NOT a news source, and a fleeting mention in a local newspaper does not confer notability. Also seems to fail WP:BIO, as local city councillors are generally NOT notable unless other sources point to notability for OTHER reasons. I see nothing else here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Princeton's wordnet has the following definitions for a notable person:
- luminary: a celebrity who is an inspiration to others; "he was host to a large gathering of luminaries"
- celebrated: widely known and esteemed; "a famous actor"; "a celebrated musician"; "a famed scientist"; "an illustrious judge"; "a notable historian"; "a renowned painter"
Sorry, but I don't believe this person even comes close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.204.62 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better, Wikipedia has its own definition of notability as it applies to articles at Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think this definition at Wikipedia is more appropriate - see the Politician section and note the Provincial level.Toddst1 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better, Wikipedia has its own definition of notability as it applies to articles at Wikipedia. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article clearly demonstrates that she is notable throughout Northern Ontario having been the President of the Northern Association of Chamber of Commerce and being heavily involved with the Provincial and Federal government. She was even named one of the top 5 movers and shakers in the region for securing a Northern Ontario Grow Bond from the Government as noted in the article.--Picard102 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sub-provincial politician below WP:BIO level with primarily WP:LOCAL significance. I suspect this article is a WP:COATRACK to record her brush with the law for posterity. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: Radio Canada has an article on her[9] (in French) that talks about how she was pushing to move the border of Ontario and Manitoba. It's a reliable, national source that documents her operating at the provinicial level. Toddst1 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Toddst1 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This article is biased, against the Do No Harm dictate and a WP:COATRACK issue on a former local politician who does not meet the WP-criteria for A Notable Person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaslampi (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any bias in the article, just verifiable facts about the person in question. Obviously there is some facts there that probably doesn't shed the best light on her recently, but they are facts none the less. It's odd though how this article has been around for a long time, created by you Douglaslampi, until recently where it's garnered quite a bit of attention. --Picard102 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO, which says it all, really. Picard's off-site canvassing didn't come into my decision, however bad form it is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:For the record, my
votecomment above had nothing to do with the canvassing. Remarkable find though. Toddst1 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I wasn't pointing fingers Toddst1 - you raise a valid point! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 12:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:For the record, my
If anyone thinks this woman has received 'significant' coverage, then your thinking is far too provincial. Prior to the biased comments posted against her I never heard of Tannis Drysdale before. The chattering classes of northwestern Ontario may have heard of her, but no one else has. We have a regional Chamber here, like most areas. Don't ask me who the president is, though, because they are not notable. If you made a list of notable people from northern Ontario I'm sure Ms. Drysdale would make the first draft, but come on ... really ... who would put her on the final list. Think big picture here.
- Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.204.62 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Curry[edit]
Fails WP:PROF with flying colours. A newly minted PhD, Curry has a handful of articles in fairly small journals to his name - that just doesn't cut it. His "claim to fame" as it were was an amount of media attention of a "think piece" done for what I believe was a men's magazine. Heavy editing by anon ips and SPAs make me a bit suspicious of possible COI or vanity. a Prod tag removed by anon ip so here we are. Bigdaddy1981 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Bigdaddy1981 23:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest of all possible keeps This one seems to keep its head above water BARELY. However, I would not miss it terribly. But there does seem to be some references... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But on what grounds? Two years out of grad school and a handful of papers? Bigdaddy1981 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So there's a flurry of media attention - half of it mocking him (see the two refs about 'bad science' in the article)is this enough to suggest that his "notability" is anything but shortlived silliness. I despair at wikipedia if this remains. Bigdaddy1981 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep not for the scientific work but the media attention to it. Bad science, or whatever you want to call it, is notable if RS in the general media think it is. DGG (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this not, however, rather against the notability guideline that notability should not be temporary? Bigdaddy1981 06:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete simply not notable. Bobby1011 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Jack1956 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both articles as complete nonsense Alex Bakharev 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dègam[edit]
Delete a quite elaborate hoax apparently, Degam and Dègam both generate many ghits, mostly about a German company, a spa in Southern California, and a town in India. Degam+Caucasus or Dègam+Caucasus each generates a single hit apparently in Provençal language which also is irrelevant. The sources in the article aren't what they purport either, the Encyclopedia Russia article is about Iran not about "Degam". The maps included as images, have no "Dègam". The BBC link is about the caucasus, but again no mention of "Dègam".
- I am also nominating:
- Dègamsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the purported language of Dègam (no ghits)
Carlossuarez46 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both articles Pretty good hoax, even has references. However, the references, atleast the online ones, are unrelated. They all have to do with Caucasian-area issues, but NONE mentions this supposed area in any way. I even ran the Russian Language one through babelfish, and it has nothing at all about this. Pretty decent hoax, but still total bullshit --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Randy Jernigan[edit]
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike A Burns[edit]
I was almost going to mark as a speedy - but it has some assertions of notability, so deserves5 days here. Unfortunately no sources. Anyone who wants it kept, please provide some. -Docg 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I was able to easy find references for Mr. Burns and rewrote the article to include them. From referenced text and research it does appear Mike is notable in his industry. This is supported by not only his companies success but numerous awards he has won. Please reconsider to keep. MatthewYeager 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of your information really seems to concern Fuel Industries. There's nothing to justify a separate bio here. Can't we just have a redirect? But actually, as the article is a virrtual orphan it seems pointless.--Docg 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cottage corporation[edit]
- Cottage corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I can't tell whether this is just a neologism that has not gained wide acceptance, or just a synonym for cottage industry (which is a far older term than 1994 as claimed in the article), so unsure if it's suitable for a redirect. ~Matticus TC 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - seems to be doubling as an advert for the term's coiner and his business. --Orange Mike 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Term coined in 1994, still unknown thirteen years later. Maybe Thomas Joseph, the corporate boss who runs such a company, should be called "the big cottage cheese Mandsford 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Numerous problems. Doctorfluffy 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of DirecTV channels of Family Package[edit]
- List of DirecTV channels of Family Package (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Duplicates information on List of DirecTV channels Mhking 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of DirecTV channels. There's such thing as too much information. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is this an advertisement? Something like, "Gosh, look what you're missing by not having DirecTV"? Do we need a list of Dish Network or DirecTV channels? I mean, if you have the service, can't you find out what's on channel 276 by flipping to it? Don't they have a channel that tells you what's on the other channels? Mandsford 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mvnforum[edit]
Whilst I'm aware this article was nominated a year ago and kept there has been a notability tag in place since July. The article itself is lacking in content and the only references are to the home page of the website. Brollachan 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haak Lung Chuan-Fa[edit]
- Haak Lung Chuan-Fa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No case made for notability. Peter Rehse 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non-notable advert. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to ensure verifiability. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted by Tijuana Brass per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rana Ghayyour Ahmed[edit]
- Rana Ghayyour Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Disputed speedy deletion. Easily solved neutrality issues, but whether a single member of the team is notable is something I think needs discussing! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - did not realise it had been deleted before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 15:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. for the keep voters, especially Hansonc see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING This is a Secret account 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nokia 6256i[edit]
Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product.
Expried {{prod}} was removed by [[User:]] with the comment "decline prod, all the other Nokia phones seem to have articles; take to afd instead". This acknowledges the problem that Wikipedia is becoming a product catalog, though several Nokia phone articles have been deleted by the prod and AfD processes. Mikeblas 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tough one. On the one side we have a rake of articles about phones, not only Nokia ones. On the other side, I looked at a random selection and quite a few of them are littered with original research, ad spam, and so on. I think overall, it's a delete with a caveat that this isn't to be a binding precedent. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Unless there is a policy about deleting every article about every product ever made. Probably a cleanup candidate unless someone wants to merge all Nokia phone articles into one hugantic article. Hansonc 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kind of looks like spam also if you allow this that means every cell phone ever made and sold should have it's own page. Yourname 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- do you feel the same way about iphone? or Google_phone which doesn't even exist by the way. The same arguement can be made for Toyota_Prius or HP-35. One product article can't be viewed any differently than others. Personally I couldn't care less about this article in general, I'll never look for it but I do believe Wikipedia should be about creation and not pointless destruction. Don't like the article? Fix it don't just delete it because you don't like it. </rant> Hansonc 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close discussion. We should not consider similar articles on a case by case basis because this leads to inconsistent results. Most Nokia phones have articles and they generally (but don't always) survive AfD. This one has about 500K google hits but only 1 article - it's clearly a real, substantial product, but only one of a line.Creating holes in the coverage through occasional random deletions hurts the reliability and encyclopedic coverage of Wikipedia far more than it helps. If necessary, redirect and merge if it is simply a variant of a more popular model. If not, close and re-nominate in a group with all the other Nokia phones and possibly other brands (or bring this up as a policy discussion, not wily nilly Afd). Wikidemo 22:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Keeping because other stuff exists isn't a valid reason. Batch AfDs have the problem of either fully succeeding or fully failing -- they almost always result in other editors asking for re-listing as individual AfDs. "Holes in coverage" exist around products in a "line" that aren't notable; fact is, none of the products should be listed because Wikipedia isn't a Nokia catalog. -- Mikeblas 09:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 16:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwain Messer[edit]
Non-notable musician; second nom. (previous was a pretty weak keep) with no change in subjects notability (or article) in the 2.5+ years since. Subject's official website shows no live appearances in over a year AUTiger » talk 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are advanced to enable verifiability. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources are located. I've spent some time combing through Google. There are a lot of hits there, but I didn't find anything that would qualify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erwin James Casareno[edit]
- Erwin James Casareno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Subject is the president of a campus political club. Not notable, does not meet the criteria set out in WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —Skeezix1000 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Dougie WII 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Bearcat 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marc W. Juretus[edit]
- Marc W. Juretus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article appears to be a vanity article written by subject. Seems to be a non-notable local comic. Continues to remove tags from article, so I can't just tag it for cleanup. Evidence to be posted in comment here, withholding vote. Improbcat 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Evidence
- COI/vanity: The author of this article User:Bigrollo appears to be the subject of the article. see evidence.
- Notability: The only news article about him is from a tiny paper serving one school district. Google has 10 hits for "Marc W. Juretus", most his own websites or myspace comments. There are 107 for "Marc Juretus", but again many are his own sites or comments, as well as false positives]. Improbcat 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom WP:VSCA -- Dougie WII 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VSCA and WP:BIO. Borderline speedy. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:N, which requires that notability be established by multiple, independent reliable sources, as well as WP:V. -- But|seriously|folks 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, easily fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 06:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citadel Station (System Shock)[edit]
- Citadel Station (System Shock) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No assertion of real-world notability, no citations to reliable sources. Additionally, is entirely in-universe plot summary. EEMIV 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to System Shock or delete per WP:FICT and WP:WAF. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability - no sources. The station itself doesn't seem desperately important outside of its role in the plot - these are covered in System Shock (a featured article) and SHODAN. That aside, we have a few factoids about the physical structure and facilities of the station - neither here nor there.Someone another 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, it could be merged to SHODAN, to include a few background details of the facility she's taken over.Someone another 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to System Shock. --SHODAN 15:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoteikan[edit]
Non-notable single club Peter Rehse 14:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Non-notable --Nate1481( t/c) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears rather rubbishy. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Bradford44 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't appear to satisfy WP:N. Doctorfluffy 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xulon Press[edit]
While the article does assert the company's notability, it does not do so from reliable secondary sources, which is the primary criterion from WP:ORG. The Wikipedia is not a PR wire to get a company's name out there, and not all companies are notable. I googled and found nothing but PR statements and customer (i.e., author) testimonials pro and con -- in short, nothing that proves its notability. Flex (talk/contribs) 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Subdolous 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to meet verifiability standards. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the article for the parent company, Salem Communications, which is notable. Give it its own section there and leave a redirect after this article is deleted. It's useful to have a record on Wikipedia that this is printer of self-published books since books "published" by such a press with no editorial review are not a reliable sources and almost never notable. --A. B. (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra points will be awarded for someone that reviews Special:Whatlinkshere/Xulon Press for possible deletion candidates. --A. B. (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge seems most appropriate to me, per A. B. Pigmanwhat?/trail 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It meets the notability standards and, as a major (claimed to be largest or fastest growing) Christian print on demand publisher, it's a rather significant subject. I found some sources and added them. It wasn't that hard - google is a wonderful thing. There are far more sources if someone would care to check. Merging isn't terribly appropriate because they are different companies with different histories and purposes. One simply bought the other last year.Wikidemo 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. A couple of the pieces seem like they're regurgitating the company's positive-spin statements about itself, but nonetheless they do seem to qualify as reliable. I still think they should be merged until such time as this merits its own article, however. Salem is a parent company, and not all of a parent's subsidiaries necessarily need their own articles. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rigging extempore gear[edit]
- Rigging extempore gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a How-To manual, but that's what this article is. 192.250.34.161 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (This anonymous user could not create this page, so I did it. Flex (talk/contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to, and then switch GYN back to a redirect to Santa Genoveva Airport. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all reasons mentioned above. Lunchscale 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nokia 6260[edit]
These products don't meet WP:PRODUCT. The article is a list of specifications which are completely un-cited, and reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure. The article is unlikely to be repaired as substantial references don't exist for such products.
Expired {{prod}} removed by User:NawlinWiki with the comment "decline prod, all the other Nokia phones seem to have articles; take to afd instead". This isj ust OTHERSTUFF, and acknolwedges the "Wikipedia is not a catalog" problem. Several other Nokia phone model articles have been deleted, and NawlinWiki doesn't explain why this one is immune. Mikeblas 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Prod should have been left through - NawlinWiki's argument was essentially WP:WAX. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The philosophy of wikipedia is to edit and improve articles over time. Improving a sub-standard article is far better than deleting it. This product meets WP:NOTE because it was the first ever Nokia clamshell phone. There certainly is a substantial reference for this product — Nokia's own website [10]. - Neparis 21:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. This is a popular product that has sold hundreds of thousands to millions. A huge number of sources and google hits, almost 500 articles - see [11]. The information presented is useful and encyclopedic. Calling it PR or advertising is absurd. Has anyone ever seen a magazine ad that looks like this article? It's simply a description of the product. Taking a step back, the subject is clearly encyclopedic, and taking pot shots at specific listings within a well-covered field would have a disruptive effect on the scope of the encyclopedia. It turns our coverage into swiss cheese. Wikidemo 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mo Woye Fat Kung Fu[edit]
- Mo Woye Fat Kung Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable - local advertisment Peter Rehse 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete A non-notable advert --Nate1481( t/c) 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, advertising. JJL 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete -- 13 Google hits including our article. --A. B. (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please restore article to it's original form - After reviewing the modifications you have made it seems to me that you have removed much of the relevant information and now that it has been "watered down" the request for deletion has been made. I do think more information could be added to the original version but you didn't do that. Perhaps the best way to handle this entry is to research it and add information rather than whittling it down to the point where it's substance is no longer present.--Marc Krause 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not quite - the entry for afd was made by me before the trimming. The trimming, which was not done by me, does not effect the underlying issue. In any case, in the interest of fairness, I restored the deleted text.Peter Rehse 09:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. Bradford44 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Certainly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasel Safwan[edit]
Self-promoting autobiography of artist; asserts notability but cites no sources. Author has repeatedly reposted the deleted (and nearly identical) article UAEism. NawlinWiki 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced vanity page by/for non-notable artist. --DAJF 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent.--Esprit15d 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Unreferenced, but I'm not sure that it's unverifiable, nor am I sure of notability, but those issues may be fixed. There may be some vanity and advertising here, but I don't think it's fully cruft. I'll see if I can dig up something reliable on the issue. Unfortunately I can only review English sources. Martijn Hoekstra 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/dss2007/more_stories/10141297.html Gulfnews is pretty big
- http://www.alaintimesuae.com/pdf/aat_24_english_full.pdf not sure about the reliability of the Al Ain Times.
- That's all I could dig up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to the page to meet verifiability requirement. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was
canvassedsolicited by User:A. B. to return to this discussion. The Al Ain Times article is in the style of an advertorial, and the other cited page doesn't really say why he is notable either. WP:RS refers to mainstream newspapers, but neither of those cited have a circulation into six digits. I still say delete, although weaker than before. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was
- Keep -- the article about him in Gulf News clearly establishes notability as does the article in the Al Ain Times (circulation 60,000)[12] regardless of whether the subject has started the article himself. --A. B. (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Middle East-related deletions and Visual Arts-related deletions. --A. B. (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable (yet anyway). Johnbod 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that the Gulf News article cited by A. B. indicates notability. The fact that the artist is not in an English-speaking country means that there is likely to be less English-language coverage than for an artist of similar merit in an English-speaking country. Article needs help, due in large part to the limited English-language ability of its primary contributor. (I did some limited article cleanup after seeing this AFD.) --Orlady 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe someone who knows some arabic could find out if he/she could find any arabic sources? Martijn Hoekstra 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a message (in English) for Arabic Wikipedia editors at ar:ويكيبيديا:سفارة#en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasel Safwan asking for help. I don't know if we'll get an answer back in time before this AfD closes. --A. B. (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe someone who knows some arabic could find out if he/she could find any arabic sources? Martijn Hoekstra 19:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Keep I am from UAE, and I just checked this page, we know Wasel Safwan, he is an architect and painter. You can ask the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage (ADACH) ex: featured at Culture Program http://www.adach.ae/culture-calendar/_images/this-month-sept2008-eng.pdf and the Dubai Cultural Council. Both of them they have produced books about him, I have many books about him. These are links about Wasel Safwan: his official site www.waselart.com , check out http://www.frenchartfestival.com/emiriens , http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20080220135243 , http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Abu_Dhabi_welcomes_long_anticipated_French_Art_Festival/29124.htm Wasel at French Art Festival, www.artparis-abudhabi.com Wasel participated at Art Paris Abu Dhabi 2007, where Picasso artworks shows too "Created in 1999, artparis is an international fair dedicated to modern and contemporary art which takes place in March of each year, in the heart of Paris, under the elegant glass roof of the Grand Palais, a prestigious location of French culture.", http://www.fbdthemovie.com/reviews.html that approve that he is known to US community too, they used his comment about Venus Project by architect Jacque Fresco "Film by William Gazecki", http://www.khaleejtimes.com/citytimes/inside.asp?xfile=/data/citytimes/2008/October/citytimes_October99.xml§ion=citytimes&col= by Khaleej Times, http://archive.gulfnews.com/indepth/dss2007/more_stories/10141297.html by Gulf News, Arabian Business.com http://www.arabianbusiness.com/search/wasel+safwan?searchphrase=all&ordering=trelevance&template=arabianbusiness , UAE Interact http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Colours_of_humanity/26315.htm , also at Sama Dubai TV channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqGL0bSFTU . --AbuDhabi-Alain 16 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sony Ericsson S700[edit]
- Sony Ericsson S700 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Expired {{prod}} removed by User:NawlinWiki with the comment "decline prod, take to afd if you want". Mikeblas 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems like we've let too many types of mobile phone get articles. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 feels strongly about a merge, I will supply them the deleted content at their request. Eluchil404 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pyroterrorism[edit]
- Pyroterrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was speedy deleted during its first AfD as a hoax. DRV overturned as "hoax" is not a CSD criterion, especially for articles with sources. Still, Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not sure whether you can define this as a 'hoax', but it's definitely an unverifiable neologism which seems to have no wide usage. Google picks up a few hundred hits, but none that I'd consider as being a reliable source. Tx17777 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sufficient coverage and sources are cited to make me think this is more than a random neologism. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you follow those cited sources, the only ones which actually mention the word appear to be little more than blogs. The reputable news organizations cited make no mention of the term, and all the google hits also appear to be blogs or other similar sites. You can argue this term is more that just a neologism only if you can find some reputable newsworthy or academic sources that use the term "pyroterrorism", but for now, this appears to be nothing more than a sensationalist term for arson. Tx17777 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged and redirect to arson. As a term there are very few uses of "pyroterrorism" outside blogs. There are a handful of instances such as Greece and Australia where the word "terrorism" has been bandied about in relation to human-set fires, but it's not clear that anyone has ever been prosecuted under a terrorism charge for setting a fire. Academic study of the issue seems quite limited (given that pyroterrorism vs. arson is essentially a matter of motive rather than means or effect). --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The use of fire for criminal purposes falls under the accepted terms "arson" and "terrorism". I doubt terrorism by arson meets WP:V and WP:NOTE, but even if it did, it should be added into one or both of those existing articles. I see no need for an article on something called "pyroterrorism"(?). If it is "more than a random neologism", why is neither the term nor the subject mentioned anywhere in the existing terrorism article? - Neparis 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, otherwise redirect to terrorism or arson. -RiverHockey 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neologism, attempt of the media to sell a new shocking word. There's 1 occurence of the term on Google scholar. The traditional term serves quite well. Last but not least, the text of the article is not quite what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again As the original nominator on AfD #1, I still don't see this as worth having. Not notable term. Again, look at the lack of sources. Please review my complete failure to find anything on AfD #1. Also, protect for now vs. recreation. • Lawrence Cohen 05:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to arson per Dhartung.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per WP:NEO, we should avoid having articles on neologisms. And I don't see enough to justify an article on the term. Arson or Tactics of terrorism would seem appropriate locations to merge to. The one person from our Wikiproject on Terrorism who showed up to DRV preferred Arson; I don't have strong opinions. There is enough sourcing available, generally linked in the article or the DRV, to support a merge and redirect. GRBerry 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to arson 132.205.99.122 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a rather silly neologism. Artw 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources, and the article way too long for a merge. This is a Secret account 02:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenloft domains[edit]
- Ravenloft domains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No sign of any secondary sources to show real-world notability. While Ravenloft itself is notable, a listing of the numerous places in it just isn't. Pak21 13:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — A logical forked component of the Ravenloft article. These are notable within the context of the setting, and therefore acquire much the same level of notability by inheritance. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not inherited --Pak21 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then my response, in this and all other cases, would be to suggest merging it into the main article and ignore the size restrictions. As per the text in the guideline you note: "On the other hand, if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect." Which, of course, is ludicrous in some cases. So the guideline itself questionable when there is a size limitation. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This information is simply not notable, therefore does not need to be merged into a parent article. BreathingMeat 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then my response, in this and all other cases, would be to suggest merging it into the main article and ignore the size restrictions. As per the text in the guideline you note: "On the other hand, if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect." Which, of course, is ludicrous in some cases. So the guideline itself questionable when there is a size limitation. — RJH (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not inherited --Pak21 15:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A treatment of this topic is important for the overall understanding of Ravenloft, although putting an explanation on what domains are and their role in the setting would make the article better rather than having a plain list. Merging this list into the main Ravenloft article would make that article too long. A list-type article is how individually non-notable topics but notable as a set are normally treated in Wikipedia. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, can't see any reason to delete, unfortunately because I am opposed to the inclusion of this content. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear violation of WP:Plot, merging these articles just forces us to later delete large lists of articles. Ridernyc 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. No secondary sources. BreathingMeat 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge A *short* description of each of the domains in the Ravenloft article should not be too long. I don't think that a separate article is necessary to convey a sense of each of the domains, and their relevance to the setting. Allandaros 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Ravenloft 132.205.99.122 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Ravenloft After having spent a lot of time cleaning this article up and referencing it, it'd be a waste to throw it all away. Besides other D&D settings such as the Forgotten Realms have lists of their fictional regions, this is no different. Bluebomber4evr 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your view on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Pak21 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, what is your view on WP:NNC? I actually agree that the subject does not need its own topic, but the content is informative enough, at least in part, to the subject of the Ravenloft world to be of use in the main Ravenloft article. Barring that, it could also be trimmed and renamed "List of Ravenloft Domains", as is the standard for fictional locations.--Bluebomber4evr 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your view on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Pak21 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G11 Pedro : Chat 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoshin budo ryu[edit]
- Hoshin budo ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable advertisement Peter Rehse 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete blatant advert (CSD G11) --Nate1481( t/c) 13:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy, the 'for details of the latest techniques see link' was too much plus created by User talk:Hoshinbudo--Nate1481( t/c) 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 06:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CHERUB: The Recruit[edit]
- CHERUB: The Recruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There is no assertion of notability, nor reference to independent sources, for any of these books, apart from belonging to the CHERUB series. I am also nominating the following articles, one for each book of the series, some of which not yet published. In each case apparently there is not more to say than summarising the plot, and in some cases a bit of OR.
- CHERUB: Class A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: Maximum Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: The Killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: Divine Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: Man Vs. Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: The Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: Mad Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: The Sleepwalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CHERUB: Dark Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--Goochelaar 13:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - after looking at the CHERUB article, I get the feeling, with some reliable sources, most (if not all) of these books will meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). However, the CHERUB: Dark Sun (yet to be released) should probably be deleted until it's closer to it's release date, because right now, it's pure WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerback 13:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep very notable book series, bestselling, award-winning, published in a number of countries. Notable enough that each book deserves an article IMHO, although a merge would also be acceptable provided no major information is lost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - After reading the main CHERUB article and its talk page, it's obvious that a fan base exists which is maintaining and puffing up the series' importance. There is no way, however, to make a case for the notability of each constituent volume. If it becomes a serious major phenomenon, perhaps then; but for now, what we mostly have is peacockery and unsubstantiated claims. There's more than enough material in the main article; these articles are overkill and fanboyism (apparently literally by fanboys, rather than post-adolescents; not that there's anything wrong with younger editors participating in this project, of course). --Orange Mike 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "major phenomenon", but the latest book is currently ranked 86th on Amazon. They might not be Harry Potter (which for comparison's sake is ranked 40th), but they're not some vanity-press dreck that we delete by the bucketload here on AfD, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to imply that the series fails notability; but the individual volumes simply do not qualify; that's all I meant. The series' advocates should concentrate on sourcing and cleaning up the parent article and the one about the author (which latter is still too chummy/cutesy for words). --Orange Mike 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "major phenomenon", but the latest book is currently ranked 86th on Amazon. They might not be Harry Potter (which for comparison's sake is ranked 40th), but they're not some vanity-press dreck that we delete by the bucketload here on AfD, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The individual volumes of the series have no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I came here to vote Delete, for I feel towards this kind of stuff the way I do about television series episode articles. This is one of the places where I think our rules followed literally may give slightly absurd results. There will be a few reviews at least for every individual one of these titles--and for a great many less important books as well, especially childrens books. But it will be very difficult for the articles to be more than plot summary (that what the reviews tend to be as well)there is more to say, but the usual editors of these articles may not be prepared to discuss influences from other series, such character development as there may be, the structure of the plot in the terms used by professional authors, the publishing history, and so one. Now, this is true for almost any book--if it has 2 reviews, it is justified by N:Fiction, and an article could be written, potentially a good one if people are prepared to do the work. But what books are worth doing? Especially in a series like this? I don't have an answer to this one.
- but there are some interesting things about these particular articles. After the first, they are unusually compact and well written for articles about fan fiction. They are also unusually consistent. They are not being done by random fans, but by a relatively small group of people, mostly at ip addresses, some of whom obviously have considerable sophistication at WP. (They have also consistently taken the first paragraph of each article by copy and paste from the series web site. But the rest seems from the edit history to have been written as originals). They also seem to be still under development--a section on reviews seems to be being added, and possibly one on characters. So they are rather good articles of their kind.
- So we have a choice--do we accept these articles, or do we change our rules. The sales rank is high enough to be notable, and there are available sources. if we don;t want to include them, we need a different rule.
- Perhaps the problem is that notability is linked to the articles level--perhaps instead it should be linked at a appropriate standard to content, and the question of whether or not something is an article be a minor decision. This would be different from our present merge, which usually operates to destroy content altogether. DGG (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, as notable fiction per DGG, except delete CHERUB: Dark Sun per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all unless citations from reliable sources are added to verify notability. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as these articles do not (or cannot) establish notability, why not just Merge them all into a List of CHERUB books? – sgeureka t•c 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete per nom. If not, is there a tag that can prompt editors to reduce an article's length? Often times insignificant articles become exaggerated or just way too long in general, but may still be notable enough to merit an entry. -RiverHockey 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Orange Mike. Doctorfluffy 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If Wikipedia has articles about other books, why not keep this one? Weirdy Talk 06:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. I think that these books are notable enough and seeing as Wikipedia has articles on books, I think that they should be kept. However, I agree that Dark Sun should be deleted due to WP:CRYSTAL. I will also try and improve all the articles as a fan of the series and have them set out in a way similiar to the Alex Rider books. Kyriakos 08:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting and notable. (I only arrived at this page because I was looking up the author and the various titles.) <KF> 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, except CHERUB: Dark Sun per Jauerback and DGG. If CHERUB: Dark Sun is being released as part as World Book Day, that shows that the series as a whole is very popular among young readers. Some of the books have won also won awards. I think DGG's point about children's and young adult books is important; a lot of extremely popular children's books are not going to get a lot of coverage in WP:RS unless those books also appeal to adults (like Harry Potter or His Dark Materials) or they are books that adults think are "worthy" reading material for children. Deleting articles like these reduces Wikipedia's utility for our younger readers and editors (if I was 12, these are exactly the kind of articles I would read) I think in these cases, individual articles for each book with a concise plot summary, publication information, and information about any awards are OK. If there were separate articles about characters or story arcs from the books, then there would be a problem IMO. Bláthnaid 11:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the nominator, and I'd like to comment on some of the above comments. I have nothing against these books, and if they are actually notable, I am the first one to wish that good articles are written about some or all of them. But as things stand, most of the remarks are either on the lines of it's interesting and the like, or mention vast popularity, awards and other merits I can't find any source about in the articles. If those awards and merits are real, and notable, there should be some kind of source about them. I understand that some editors of these article are young enthusiasts of the series, more knowledgeable about its content than about Wikipedia standards: this enthusiasm is very good indeed, but perhaps some of the more mature editors supporting the notability of these books could spend some time sourcing the articles? Thanks, Goochelaar 13:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a source about CHERUB: The Recruit winning the Red House Children's Book Award [13]. That award was voted for by children and proves that the series is popular amongst them, as does a book in the series being part of World Book Day [14]. I think that if a children's book is published by a prominent publisher, is obviously popular (eg these Amazon reviews), and translated into other languages de:CHERUB [15] they should be allowed to have articles, at least until 12 year olds start writing WP:RS. Also, there is an article about a character in the books, James Adams (character), which I think should be merged into the main CHERUB article. Bláthnaid 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael Bergmann[edit]
- Raphael Bergmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
[REDACTED STATEMENT - Oshwah] I can see no evidence of individual notability. [REDACTED STATEMENT - Oshwah], but there's no media interest or impartial secondary sourcing here. -Docg 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Northern_Alliance_(Canada) -- Dougie WII 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep - [REDACTED STATEMENT - Oshwah]. Upon closer reading of article it is apparent that no information exists in it that is not contained in the Northern_Alliance_(Canada) article.
- Can you find *any* independent evidence of notability? I mean any? INdeed, can you find any reliable sources at all?--Docg 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-03.html Bigdaddy1981 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Only mentioned in 1 paragraph: Raphael Bergmann, the organizer of the Northern Alliance group in London, Ontario, received some attention when he tried to counter-demonstrate against gay pride parades in several locations. This small offshoot group is known as StraightPride Inc. and had little impact on gay pride festivities. CWC 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2000/audit2000-03.html Bigdaddy1981 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find *any* independent evidence of notability? I mean any? INdeed, can you find any reliable sources at all?--Docg 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be notable, but appearance does not seem to survuve any kind of scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no notability here. CWC 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Two of you here appear to have violated WP:BLP and WP:NPA in this AfD by using the terms 'scumbags' and 'dirtbags'. It is clearly stated that you should not use this kind of attacking language anywhere in Wikipedia, no matter how much you disagree with something. See WP:CBLANK.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Google News Archive search turns up nothing relevant. --A. B. (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in the Toronto Globe and Mail going back to the start of their online archives 1-1-2000. --A. B. (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in the Toronto Globe and Mail going back to the start of their online archives 1-1-2000. --A. B. (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USAF Shihan[edit]
Non-notable subject - please see the article's talk page. Peter Rehse 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or heavily crop and merge to Shihan not distinctive enough within the organisation to out of the organisation to deserve a separate article --Nate1481( t/c) 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A very minor relevance to the Shihan article - not sure how you could merge that.Peter Rehse 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
most of the article isn't even about him, and what there is of him, isn't worth keeping. There isn't a single source to say he's notable.Jauerback 14:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not about an individual - but a group of individuals.Peter Rehse 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and my comments at talk. Bradford44 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dosphea[edit]
"Dosphea is a football/soccer type sport that was created in 2006 by the team behind B.L.A.C.K." Yes, indeed. Unverifiable googlewhackblatt. Contested prod. MER-C 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, non-notable. -- Dougie WII 12:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced, non-notable, possible hoax. --DAJF 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of references. What a fun word, googlewhackblatt. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - how did it make it this far? Whatever... Jauerback 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD G11, blatant spam. Also, the puffery in the text bordered on patent nonsense: The project gives a revolutionary twirl in the terms of computer and web technology &c. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Device control over internet[edit]
- Device control over internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Neologism, or non-notable software. The 5 ghits fail to verify this article. MER-C 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The topic is covered in ubiquitous computing. Sounds spammy too.--victor falk 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Useless article, looks close to being nonsense to me. Dougie WII 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - spam and a copyvio.--Esprit15d 13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Per G11. See WP:CSD. Subdolous 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Donato[edit]
Long comments have been refactored to the talk page to aid readability of the day's discussion. This is not to be seen as asserting that those comments are worth any less than others here. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Donato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fine art photographer/ director Edward Donato aka Eduardus Donatella, (born in Los Angeles, September 25, 1970) is probably best known for writing and directing the 2002 dramatic dark comedy "Jesus Is Coming". About which dramatic dark comedy imdb.com has remarkably little to say. Number of user comments: zero. Of external reviews: zero. Total Donato "presence" on imdb.com other than this one dramatic dark comedy: zero. The article is full of grand claims, which I flagged with {{fact}} thingies, which in turn were quickly removed. Little on google, though he does have a MySpace page. Very minor notability in film, no credible claim of notability in photography, a massive whiff of promotion. -- Hoary 11:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: in a single edit, the SP-IP has removed most of the article (and, surprise surprise, the AfD notice). So now our man is described as little more than the author/director of this film. Although the film came out in 2002 (when the web was of course already in full swing) and has had five full years to achieve fame and glory, Google tells a sad story. It does have a page at toptenreviews.com, but this too is less than enthralling. -- Hoary 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Let it go, it's just a tiny, underdeveloped slip of a thing that shows no promise of reaching maturity. Put it back in the sea to feed a bigger fish. Pinkville 13:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm surprised the "film" wasn't nominated, too. Jauerback 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus, I've just realized that Jesus Is Coming has its own article too. I hadn't noticed. I'd AfD that too, but it's past bedtime, and all the excitement over some shopping mall has worn me out. (The latest: "large nasty security guys" are after me.) -- Hoary 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:SofiaValentino has canvassed me on my talk page to ask me to change my vote. I am not doing so. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lol! "Best known" for something that itself is unknown speaks for itself. TGreenburgPR 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can corroborate the subject's notability within the world of fine art photography. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have received an off-Wiki email soliciting Wikipedia assistance on behalf of the subject. This was not through the email address that I've attached to my Wikipedia account. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please gyrofrog why would anyone in their right mind contact you? After all your pointless cd reviews in Austin Texas? You're not the boss of anything! I've spent the past few years in Austin during the South By South West Film Fest, and not a single peep about you, in Texas or- back in L.A. Better expand, Hollywood's coming! Goggle loves Hollywood- soon Wiki will love Hollywood too, big guy. ThorLg November 5 2007
- I have no idea why someone would go to that kind of trouble. Perhaps they weren't in their right mind, as you suggest. It certainly didn't sway me toward keeping this article. It's interesting, though, that you mentioned the content of my website - the email came through the website's contact address. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please gyrofrog why would anyone in their right mind contact you? After all your pointless cd reviews in Austin Texas? You're not the boss of anything! I've spent the past few years in Austin during the South By South West Film Fest, and not a single peep about you, in Texas or- back in L.A. Better expand, Hollywood's coming! Goggle loves Hollywood- soon Wiki will love Hollywood too, big guy. ThorLg November 5 2007
- Comment: I have received an off-Wiki email soliciting Wikipedia assistance on behalf of the subject. This was not through the email address that I've attached to my Wikipedia account. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- A Google News Archive search turns up nothing useful for this Edward Donato. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article smarticle, pound for pound dollar for dollar, nothing else matters. Be advised. You'll find E.D growing... He's Hollywood. Enough said, watch and learn! I know who's involved... User:ThorLG November 4 2007
- — ThorLG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . --A. B. (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zipeg[edit]
I tagged this for a speedy delete, but it was declined by an administrator. It looks like spam to me, with no assertion of notability. Cap'n Walker 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep. I think we really need an active Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline. But since there isn't one, I'll say keep since there seem to be plenty of reviews [16][17] and CNET lists 16,000+ downloads in about three weeks.[18] Not blatant advertising, though it could use a little rewording. CitiCat ♫ 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Unarchiver article, 7-zip article should also be deleted then?. Zipeg is completely free, not a spam, and has a par download counter for the last year with The Unarchiver.Leo Kuznetsov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo.Kuznetsov (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as has no primary or secondary sources; article is no more than a spammy link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 09:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The program is freeware so it's not commercial advertising/spam. Dougie WII 11:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spam is spam, whether it's a free product or not. You can advertise for anything. -- 68.156.149.62 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per WP:SOFTWARE. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sony Ericsson W660i[edit]
- Sony Ericsson W660i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A recently created directory style entry for a version of the Sony Ericsson phone; I have cleaned the article recently but it still does not establish notability or verification. The article was recently PRODed with the following concern: Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. However the article had already been PRODed and contested before hand so I am bringing this to AFD. Camaron1 | Chris 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great Agbonlahor[edit]
- Great Agbonlahor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No references or notability stated. Notable for one event, so he fails WP:BLP1E. The Michael McDowell article already covers similar events, so this should be deleted and the relevant contents merged there. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A limited search finds no references. WP:BLP1E is a deal-breaker as well, and I can find no other circumstances for which the subject would actually be notable (though sources might prove me wrong). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or maybe put these few sentences into the article on McDowell. —ScouterSig 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable for own page, could be mentioned in a broader article as said above. -- Dougie WII 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. The news has died down here in Ireland about him, and he's now just another deportee - despite all the efforts to break the rules for him. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Katharine "Kat" Bear-Diemer Robinson[edit]
- Katharine "Kat" Bear-Diemer Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Very minor author and tv-producer. I don't see why we should have an article on this lady. Law & Disorder 08:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability policy. Doctorfluffy 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable; Arkansas mediacruft. -- Dougie WII 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete totally non-notable individual. Wikipedia isn't a social networking site so this should go. Bigdaddy1981 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN local TV producer/blogger. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. University of York#Student_activities already mentions them, so there isn't really much to merge--Tikiwont 10:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
York Union[edit]
This is an article on York University's debating club. It was AfD'ed previously, deleted, and reposted, but the current version is somewhat different from the deleted version (diff) and seems to assert notability with phrases like "increasing its involvement in the national debating circuit" and "sends teams to inter-varsity competitions", so I thought of bringing it here to see what everyone thinks. Resurgent insurgent 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not going to say anything about notability because I am ignorant of the norms for debating societies and school clubs in general - but there seems to be a distinct lack of sources. --Gwern (contribs) 15:59 24 October 2007 (GMT)
- Delete. I believe there is general consensus that student clubs at particular schools or universities are not notable, unless there are solid sources establishing general notability.
I also note that the article was apparently deleted through AfD last year and recreated (at "York union", with different capitalization) this past March. If the versions are substantially the same, I would urge speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4.-David Schaich Talk/Cont 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to University of York or delete per David Schaich. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to University of York if there's anything notable, otherwise delete --A. B. (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noam E. Josephides[edit]
- Noam E. Josephides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Does not meet notability criteria in WP:BIO, also appears to be self promotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs)
- Comment Google gives him 29 points for 'noam e. josephides' -wiki and 91 points for 'noam josephides' -wiki. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn--Esprit15d 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Subdolous. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google search produces 78 hits, some irrelevant and none suitable for establishing notability. Searching Google News Archive turns up one article from a reliable source behind a paywall but I can't tell if it's about him from the abstract.[19][[20] --A. B. (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Film-related deletions and Israel-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable secondary sources. A Hebrew google search to supplement the English search- 23hits, none serve to establish notability.[21] -- Derwig 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 access is desired to take data into other articles, contact me and I will restore as a userfied page for this purpose. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 08:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of character deaths on Family Affairs[edit]
- List of character deaths on Family Affairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable TV trivia with no real-world context. Masaruemoto 03:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteNo real world context. An article on the show is fine - this detail is trivia not encyclopedic.Obina 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Put the information into a parent article if possible and redirect this to the correct section. If no valid target exists, delete it. • Lawrence Cohen 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft, in-universe, unsourced, non-notable, possible OR. •97198 talk 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:Plot. Ridernyc 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus There are disputes over content and the intrinsic notability of sportspeoople here. While those matters remain unresolved, the question of whether this article is suitable or not for inclusion can't be definitively decided. I'm not sure if any template tags that highlight the disagreement are available for use on the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marek Deska[edit]
non-notable baseball player. Canuck85 07:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some random minor league Dutch baseball player is not notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO. He plays in the Dutch Major Leagues. Not only plays in a fully professional league, but plays at the highest level of that league (which is an argument commonly made). Smashville 13:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Professional athletes don't require significant coverage. Merely playing in a fully professional league meets WP:BIO. All major league athletes are considered notable regardless of the press received. "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." Smashville 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, per WP:BIO: "meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this case this individual only satisfies one. Recommendation stands. Subdolous 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But per precedent, established time and again - all major league athletes are notable. Smashville 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, per WP:BIO: "meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this case this individual only satisfies one. Recommendation stands. Subdolous 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was never precedent on the issue about minor leaguers. Anyways WP:RS and WP:V trump WP:BIO easily so Delete Jbeach sup 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is/was a Dutch major leaguer. There is definitely a precedent for current/former major leaguers. Perhaps someone who can speak the language can pull a source to prove he exists. Smashville 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked google news, this source proofs that he was a semi-pro player right now and I couldn't see much else Jbeach sup 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone translate this? I mean...there aren't going to be many English language sources on the Dutch major leagues... Smashville 18:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Professional athletes don't require significant coverage. Merely playing in a fully professional league meets WP:BIO. All major league athletes are considered notable regardless of the press received. "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis." Smashville 15:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plays in the Dutch major leagues. That makes him notable according to policy and precedence. Spanneraol 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball guidelines for notability of baseball players: "Have appeared in at least one game in any ... top-level foreign league." He qualifies. Kinston eagle 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Michael O'Brien (Irish politician)[edit]
- Michael O'Brien (Irish politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. Unreferenced biography of an unsuccessful candidate in the Irish general election, 2007 and 2002, who didn't even come close to being elected on either occasion. (see Carlow-Kilkenny (Dáil Éireann constituency)#2007_Election). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete long serving but non-notable councillor. Closest he gets to anything is the claim that he's the first Irish politco to use an election blog ---- doubt that establishes notability even if it can be shown to be true. Which I doubt. Bigdaddy1981 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broheim[edit]
Neologism, 700 ghits. MER-C 11:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear violation of WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it is still a neologism. Carlosguitar 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep I've added 2 of the 3 citation links mentioned below to the article as part of the closure activity. I've also added Template:COI in keeping with some commentary below and on the article's talk page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Living On The Edge (TV show)[edit]
- Living On The Edge (TV show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Reason Hedphunk 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)This article is written by one of the "cast" of the show-Esme (EsmeLover) and this TV show is not of note enough to warrant its own article and "Cast" list.[reply]
- Keep, it's a real show with lots of reliable sources, although none actually in the article: [22], [23], [24], just to list a few. Corvus cornix 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Corvus cornix. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd rather have rabid badgers play hopscotch on my genitals than watch an episode of this, but it's real, verifiable, and notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I doubt that contributor Esmelover is Esme, the word "esmelover" more implies they are a devout fan. Regardless this seems to hhave received a lot of coverage. We don't need separate articles listing the characters thoughMerkinsmum 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Starblind. LOL. Jauerback 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete per nom. Has a legit reference, but it seems like there is a new television series like this every week. Is it really notable (outside of Britain), and does every MTV show really deserve an entry on wikipedia? -RiverHockey 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. TV series are inherently notable, especially those broadcast by a national network, as this one is. 23skidoo 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raven Hanson[edit]
Non-notable model. Claims to mag covers aren't verifiable and she brings up only 317 ghits. Calliopejen1 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photo collection here (ugh, bloody flash site) seems to back up the claim that "Raven" was once on the cover of Harpers. Could this be a case of "Raven Hanson" being a disused name for an article more properly titled "Raven (model)?" --TeaDrinker 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Tiptopper 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Notability cannot be established. Doctorfluffy 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, sources concern weren't met in the AFD. This is a Secret account 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don Snow aka Jonn Savannah[edit]
- Don Snow aka Jonn Savannah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Included in this nomination:
Both of these articles are highly non-neutral articles that do not establish how these artists are notable outside of their memberships in their associated bands. Neither offer any references to this effect (other than Snow's own website), and a quick search on Google (admittedly not too detailed) didn't turn much up either. I recommend that each of these pages is redirected to The Sinceros, as that appears to be the most notable band that each of these artists stuck with the longest. (Snow is reported in the article to have also toured with Squeeze, whose article confirms this, but it appears to have been a lesser involvement than he had with The Sinceros.)
Summary: Non-notable outside bands, non-neutral, unreferenced, so redirect to The Sinceros. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Maybe a slightly borderline case, but I'd say all of the above seem notable. If they were notable for involvement with only one band, I'd say a merge might be in order, but that isn't the case here. They definitely need cleanup and de-POV though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC, no references per WP:V, and reading as vanity spam. Fails WP:BLP, no information beyond his career. -- Kesh 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that while notability may be an issue here, verifiability is not: see this excerpt from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia, for example. There's also a whole book on Squeeze (Song By Song) which probably has more info. I may or may not have a copy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The pages in question have been cleaned up to reflect the careers with other notable artists. There is still much to add on these pages and new pages on other artists will cross-reference.Swanrizla 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All you did was add track lists of his albums, and name-drop a few celebrities he's supposed to have performed with (no citations given). I'm afraid that doesn't help. With no verifiable sources, this article is unsubstantiated. -- Kesh 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, albeit a weak one, per my similarly colored friend providing that reliable sources can and are added to the article(s). Burntsauce 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks any reliable sources, so fails WP:V. If sourced, the articles would pass WP:MUSIC#Criteria for composers and lyricists 1. "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above", as well as WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", and I would change to a keep. dissolvetalk 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Markus Gull[edit]
I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria; there are sources, but they don't seem to verify his notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I checked out one of the links, and it appears that he did do some of the things stated. However, the sources might need to be fixed up in order to make verifying easier for others. Icestorm815 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even if verified, the sources are weak and they do not show notability. Where are the reviews? Popular maganzine articles? IMDB? Currently violates WP:BLP in several ways. Not worth rescuing in the current form. Bearian —Preceding comment was added at 17:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearian -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, g3, nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Buchanan Dunlop[edit]
- Ian Buchanan Dunlop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
See The Shiny Heads for justification - probable hoax. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete When you put his name and "Shiny Heads" into google it returns no hits. Must be a hoax.Alberon 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, g3, nonsense/hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Shiny Heads[edit]
- The Shiny Heads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Probably a hoax - I can't find any sources to indicate that they ever existed (aleit only a quick search was done) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 11:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find anything either. Reads like a hoax too.Alberon 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aas[edit]
Suspected hoax, I find it very hard to believe that they could measure anything so small in the 17th century. Used in trading bulbs? You'd need about 50,000+ Aas for a single bulb.
- How were they supposed to measure the weight of a bulb to the nearest .0018g in the 17th century? This is smaller than the weight of a single grain of sand.
- Even if they could, why would they need to?
- Can't find anything on Google for Aas or Aasen in context.
I smell a rat.. THE KING 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a load of rubbish put into a disambig page months and months ago by an IP [25]. Since then well meaning editors have carried it over to its own article. The asserted plural seems to give it away as being a joke. I'm about 9/10th of the way to a speedy under WP:CSD#G1. Pedro : Chat 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete People have weighed carats (0.2g), or approximately 3 grains since the dawn of time. I think it's a hoax trying using As (coin) and the tulip bubble to create confusion--victor falk 12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is most definitely a hoax. Google does not show up anything in context with this article and it is impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. The lack of reliable sources is also a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, apparent hoax, no sources. NawlinWiki 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Esprit15d 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Billington[edit]
- Patrick Billington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
He's a radio presenter, but doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Only sources I could find were Home FM and 96.6 TFM and 96.9 Viking FM's website. Lack of other third-party sources than the radio stations themselves suggests a lack of notability. Solumeiras talk 10:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems non-notable.Alberon 11:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem notable to me either -- Dougie WII 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lack of third-party sources for this article is a major concern here. Does not seem notable as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Siva says it all, but not being from there, maybe he is notable? Tiptopper 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit Combat[edit]
- Spirit Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability tagged for 6 months still unsourced Nate1481( t/c) 10:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Looking at the web site it is very disingenious. It talks about thousands of clubs practicing styles derived from jujutsu - saying nothing about how many clubs (and where) are associated with Spirit Combat. I see nothing to indicate this is anything more than a local club or grouping of clubs.Peter Rehse 12:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references to support notability. Bradford44 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monash University Student Union Caulfield[edit]
- Monash University Student Union Caulfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable students union which fails WP:ORG and cites no secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash University Malaysia Students Association. → AA (talk) — 10:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 10:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash Student Association. I would love to keep this article but there really isn't a lot that wouldn't be better included in an article encompassing all student groups (even the Malaysia one) at Monash University. Failing a merge with the Student association, then amerge with the Monash University, Caulfield campus article. Student unions may no longer be compulsory but they are still an important part of university life and would need to be included in any comprehensive article about an Australian university. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggestion modified in line with comment below from User:THE KING. If a merge is not an option the article should be kept -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't merge with Monash Student Association. I am familiar with both organisations, and can say that they are completely separate entities. It would be very misleading to put the MONSU Caulfield info in with MSA. A merge with Monash University, Caulfield campus would be more appropriate if the article is deleted. THE KING 11:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable organisation, shouldn't be hard to reference if someone actually put in the time, and a merge makes no sense considering that they're unrelated organisations. Rebecca 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per comments by Mattinbgn. Important part of university life, but not sufficiently notable enough to merit their own article. Twenty Years 06:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Twenty Years. Auroranorth (sign) 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merge completed. → AA (talk) — 09:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They have only existed since compulsory student unionism was done away with. They represent students from ONE tertiary institution in Australia. I don't see how either WP:N or WP:ORG are met. The only reference, is from a primary source (the entitys own website).Garrie 20:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content has already been merged, so we keep the redirect for GFDL purposes.--Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monash Union of Berwick Students (MUBS)[edit]
- Monash Union of Berwick Students (MUBS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable students union which fails WP:ORG and cites no secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash University Malaysia Students Association. → AA (talk) — 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 10:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG (delete as per nominator) Auroranorth (sign) 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nominator and Auroranorth. Twenty Years 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash Student Association. I would love to keep this article but there really isn't a lot that wouldn't be better included in an article encompassing all student groups (even the Malaysia one) at Monash University. Failing a merge with the Student association, then amerge with the Monash University, Berwick campus article. Student unions may no longer be compulsory but they are still an important part of university life and would need to be included in any comprehensive article about an Australian university. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified suggestion in line with comments from User:THE KING. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As per my comment with MONSU Caulfield, I think a merge with Monash University, Berwick campus would be more appropriate than a merge with the MSA, whose sole focus is the Clayton campus. THE KING 11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merge completed. → AA (talk) — 09:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If the merge has been done then Monash Union of Berwick Students (MUBS) should become a redirect. Although, with (MUBS) in the title it is a rather unlikely search term ...Garrie 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected by nominator. Note that GFDL requires retention of the source article for merged content, unless a history merge is performed. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sea whip[edit]Merging this article (which I created) into Gorgonian after requesting comments on the merger on 2007-09-26. WDavis1911 08:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I'll just do the redirect, though.--Tikiwont 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maurice Chavez[edit]
Fails WP:N/WP:FICT. May have been notable at the time of the release of the game, but isn't anymore. I suggest trimming the content of the article a little and moving it into List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City which i will gladly do if consensus decides for deletion. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Dr. Rock & Capt. Fantasy Show[edit]
Non-notable college radio program. ghits show lack of verifiability. Also, authorship hints at serious problems with WP:COI - Seidenstud 07:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Non-admin closure but looks like a pretty strong consensus to keep. --Polaron | Talk 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Huma Abedin[edit]Fails WP:NOTE. Ms. Abedin is one of many staffers that Hillary Clinton has. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's the top aide to the most likely future President of the United States, for crying out loud; that makes her notable. And while the lesbian lover stuff should be kept to a minimum until the story breaks in the dominant national media, its beginning to appear that its only a matter of time before that happens. It would be inefficient to delete the article now, and then have to revive it when The Los Angeles Times breaks the story on the apparent lesbian love affair between Ms. Abedin and Sen. Clinton. KevinOKeeffe 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah why is this up for deletion? there's no rational argument or reason to get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.111.66 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ansel Bourne[edit]Delete biographical stub with no adequate source regarding notability. An item listed as trivia at IMDB is not sufficient proof that he inspired The Bourne Identity. Doczilla 07:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Zpeedy delete again, a7, no assertion of notability, will warn author. NawlinWiki 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Blue sea dogz[edit]
Non-notable band. Has been speedy deleted twice under WP:CSD#A7. Was tagged again for speedy but removed by User:Jepmatt. No evidence of notability has been provided. Mattinbgn\talk 06:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Felbridge Lawn Tennis Club[edit]
a non-notable business. fails related notability guidelines 'en-mass. Law/Disorder 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Law/Disorder 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Some content was merged to Hummingbird and some to Co-evolution, which was the principal subject of the article. Non-admin closure. --Polaron | Talk 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hummingbirds and ornithophilous flowers[edit]
looks like a high-school essay. nothing salvageable except for maybe the ref-list and that would need to be checked out by someone with access to the books anyway. Law/Disorder 06:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coredesat 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elizabeth Kucinich[edit]
Delete Subject is not independently notable per WP:NN and WP:BIO. Strothra 06:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shrips[edit]Unsourced slang or neologism. Not substantiated through internet search. Delete. Some guy 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Teenage heart[edit]
Non-notable Band, importance not asserted. Q T C 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] World Video Golfers Association[edit]
non-notable: a niche site in a niche interest moof 06:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Renata 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] G2t[edit]Non-notable company. Atleast Google was not kind to it. Q T C 06:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jared cohen[edit]Deletion nomination Middling U.S. state department employee. No evidence of real notability. Only information is his state department biography, which only proves that he works for the state department. Beyond that, there are no independant (not published by him or his employer) sources to establish notability. Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coredesat 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nickelodeon Original Movies[edit]
Nickelodeon Original Movies isn't a company,
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Byron Coons[edit]Deletion nomination Contested speedy. Was a long resume of a non-notable artist. Resume was moved to the talk page, leaving a stub article of a non-notable artist. Speedy tag was removed, as resume presumably had assertions of notability. However, there is no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and thus no notability, regardless of how long the resume is. Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Glenda Green[edit]No actual evidence of notability; when you remove all the unsourced assertions and peacock words from the lede, there's almost nothing left. Sources have been requested, but not provided (unless you count a link to a YouTube of her talking.) Orange Mike 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pgc512 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was let's delete. Coredesat 05:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Let's wrestle[edit]
Tagged for notability since July. No sources given outside of the band's own website. Edited by SPAs, fails WP:OR and WP:V, obvious WP:VSCA, and so on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I concur. This entry has been deleted at least once before for failure to meet the notability guidlines. No new sources have been added and no effort has been made to meet a variety of other Wikipedia guidlines. Id711 02:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Stewboss[edit]Spam article. Fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and so on, and so on. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Riivaaja[edit]Finnish band of unknown notability, all content seems to have been added by one account, no independent external references, very little content. I'll vote delete, though if someone can prove to me that this is even a mildly important Finnish band I'll change my vote. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sleep Terror (band)[edit]
Yet more band vanispam, from a spam purpose account, using peacocking terms, with absolutely no external sources, fails WP:V, fails WP:NPOV, reads like WP:OR, and so forth. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ittifak party[edit]
This feels like original research Marlith T/C 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Karate High School[edit]
Unknown if this band satisfies notability criteria. Their article is written as an advertisement. Seems to have had some input from a band member - see WP:COI. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bob Coble[edit]Delete unsourced article about mayor of mid-sized city, probably could find lots written up in the local rags as would be true of the city council members and heads of the sanitation, public parks, and other departments, but ultimately not notable. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mohammad Nadir Malyar[edit]
This man has evidently done well in his career, but I'm not sure that the article actually asserts notability. It's also unwikikied and unreferenced. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Diminished Fifth Records[edit]
An independent record label, from the east coast of Canada, which has had 3 releases so far. Their releases have been reviewed, and sources are given in the article. However: does this new, small independent label still count as "notable", just because of a few record reviews? I personally vote delete because the article was originally WP:VSCA written by a WP:SPA, though I've cleaned it up; however, I'm open to have my opinion changed by someone who knows a lot about metal or Canadian east coast labels. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Taiwan Jones[edit]bio exaggeration or hoax Windjade 00:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Beard fanzine[edit]
This article seems to have been created as an advertisement, has no external sources, and has a WP:PEACOCK problem. Spammy article written without a desire to fulfill WP:RS, WP:NPOV or WP:V. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Port Authority of Allegheny County bus fleet[edit]
A strange list that talks about the types of buses in the fleet, seems to have random trivia thrown, and then adds a list of buses that they no longer use. NN, original research. Ridernyc 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] International Circle of Faith[edit]
Contested PROD. I have been unable to locate reliable sources suggesting notability of the organization or any of its individual members. This article was also created by a member of the organization, based on the username. Someguy1221 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no different that similar articles for other Christian denominations. There is certainly many refernces, links and the names read like the who's who of this groups particular segment of Christiandome. The fact that a member of the group contributed as a writer of the article does not take away from it's credibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs)
Excellent point. There is a group of us working on this article. We are all working from the same sign in name on our office computer. We used other similar articles for a guideline. We are new to wikipedia, so it is a learning experience. We didn't realize we would receive critique so quickly. We have already and will continue to add notibility to the article. Your help and incite is much appreciated. GR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishopicof (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am Pentecostal and one of the contributors to the orignal article. Keep it not because we submitted a good article but keep because it is a good and relevant article now that we have had some help from Faithlessthewonderboy, AllGlorytothehypotoad, and kitcarson. Thank you. George Rodgers 1:16 November 2, 2007— George Rodgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Me thinks thou protesteth too much! I appreciate those of you who have helped make this a notible article. At the same time I find other Wikipeidans to be disingenuous (perhaps sockpuppets?). I made no assertions to anything than what I am. I am new to Wikipedia. I also made no reference to being a member of this group (ICOF). All I said was I helped with the article. Without any notability, lots of inference have been made about me. This discussion would not pass the scritiny that that the article has recieved if given the same scritiny. According to Wikipedia, "A single-purpose account is a user account which appears to be used for edits in one article only, or a small range of often-related articles." I have made no inference that I am a professional in this or any other area. It may be that I only edit articles in this genre. However, I wonder at those who have come to this discussion with obvious agenda's. Some claiming to use the 'Kings English' yet seem unable to read the wikipedia directions for discussions. "Many Wikipedians are active on a range of articles, while others edit primarily within a small area". - Wikipedia. This represents me, I am not at the level of editing lots of articles. "It is sometimes the case that Wikipedians of both types promote set agendas by their edits within a particular interest." - Wikipedia. So, you have stated you agenda. Sockpuppets and all. "Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone." - Wikipedia So, SHOW SOME GOOD FAITH, please. I had to start somewhere. I started where I have some expertise. "There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts. They can even happen when a new user registers simply in order to start a particular article." - Wikipedia So, bottom line, give me a break. These was never a reason to slur my the article. There are clear Wikipedia guidelines on how to discuss. Whether the article stays or is deleted is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that I have learned a lot. I have learned there are good people on Wikipedia and I have learned there are some very self centered people with their own agendas. If the shoe fits... George Rodgers 1:59 November 4, 2007
Comment A couple of contributions to this discussion have been (appropriately) tagged as {{spa}}. It is entirely legitimate to do this, in order to draw the attention of the closing admin to this (the closing admin will doubtless review the contribution history of these users him/herself). On a few occasions now, this tagging has been removed from the discussion, in an apparent attempt to airbrush the apparent SPA nature of some accounts from the discussion. Whilst we can rely on the closing admin to notice this sharp practice, let those who are trying to manipulate the discussion be in no doubt that their actions are wrong. Mayalld 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment George Rodgers, when I read you comments I thought you were taking this all to personal. I thought you were off the mark when talking about sockpuppets but after seeing the responses followed by the personal attack by Mayalld, I must agree with you that all this seems a little too personal. However, Mayalld is correct that the article belongs to Wikipedia now, assuming that it is not deleted and I think it would be an error to delete the article. It does need some more work but it certainly meets Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I would ignore Mayalld. His obvious personal attacks, his violation of published Wikipedia policies are certainly not what he was taugth in Scouting. Now he wants to claim that I have never edited outside of this topic. By the way, George Rodgers, if the article is deleted then it is yours! kitcarlson —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for your opinion. It is a shame that Wikipedia does not print your opinion in place of their policies. Accusing an author of vanity soapboxing is contrary to published Wikipedia policy. You have no idea what I have contributed to Wikipedia and frankly I did not ask for your opinion. Everyone has one. For the record (don't let me confuse you with the facts), I have edited at least 3 other topics just in November! When you and Mayalld have your next meeting. A review would be good: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Since they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. Cite references from a reliable source, especially on controversial topics, and avoid conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity publisher, a web directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Content that would be appropriate in a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, should instead be contributed to an appropriate Wikimedia sister project.
[usertalk:kitcarlson|kitcarlson] 4:25 November 5 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitcarlson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Fish out of water comedy film[edit]
An indiscriminate list of movies. Somewhat of a cross between an essay and a list. seems like an endless list of strange categories. Ridernyc 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=GjC&q=%22Fish+out+of+water+comedy+film%22&btnG=Search&meta= so it's probably safe to say this fails the search engine test. Interesting nonetheless, but WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument to keep it. However, I have no prejudice against userfying the article if the result of the debate is to delete. It is an indiscriminate list lacking third-party sourcing, and reliable sources for that matter. Such an essay on this is (presumably) better off transwikied to Wikibooks as a textbook, rather than here. That's my 0.02 cents on it. --Solumeiras talk 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Robert Allen Mukes[edit]
Looking at his IMDb resume, I think this guy is on the edge of notability. My casual search didn't find WP:RS or WP:V sources so I think probably no but others may think differently. Pigman 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not notable per WP:WEB. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Geopedia[edit]This entry was written by the author of the project Geopedia (Grega Milčinski - see: [[39]]), unsorced and against NPOV and fails WP:WEB, so I suggest to delete or improve by any other editor. The service is written in Slovenian language and deserves the article in slovenian part of WP. --Francl 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|