Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disco inferno generation[edit]

Disco inferno generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism generating only a single Ghit, a FT article which uses the term rather than discussing it. There are no given secondary sources, therefore delete per WP:NEO Jeodesic 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:NEO and per WP:NN Keeper | 76 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, that's weird. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. Classic bad article: Original Research, no citing, unencyclopedic AND mispellings. Actually, can someone save this as a prime example of a good choice for AfD? Doc Strange 07:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is now being converted into an article about the song but there already is one: Disco Inferno (The Trammps song).
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. Pastordavid 20:53, 15 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 and improve.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate ethics[edit]

Climate ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails the notability guidelines. The only external source is http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/ (both links link to this website) and there is a link to the declaration of human rights, but that by itself is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Reads like an essay. No independent coverage. Brusegadi 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. - The topic itself is notable, and the article doesn't do justice to it. Needs a lot of work. --Blanchardb 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep article needs much work, and is this the best name for it? JJL 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree (per nom) that the article reads like an essay. Even the first sentence, 'climate ethics is a new and growing area of research", declares that this is a neologism at best. No sources, no assertion of notability. If the number of "participating institutions" really "participate", you'd think this would be better sourced. Reads like an advertisement for the website that follows (EDCC). Good nomination. Keeper | 76 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this article is the ONLY contribution from the creator of the page. Maybe OK, maybe spam, maybe sock. Keeper | 76 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic itself is notable, as evidenced by the participation by universities, conferences in Buenos Aires, association with the United Nations, etc. I agree that it reads like an essay, albeit one with some sources. However, POV problems and awkward language can be improved. Mandsford 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem is that there is no other coverage of this stuff given to us. For all we know we are simply advertising their stuff. Notice that the only sources given are a tangental one to the declaration of human rights and one to a website with vested interests. Brusegadi 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. I noted above that the creator of the article, Ntuana, has ONLY created and modified this article and nothing else in wikipedia. Interesting how the director of the Rock Ethics Institute, which sponsored all the collaborations and issued the resolution called "White Paper", which is what this article is primarily about, is named Nancy Tuana.. Hmm,now, it's not only NN, in my opinion, it's also WP:COI and WP:SPAM. It's also an WP:ADVERT disguised in academic language. I'm not fooled. Keeper | 76 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is noteable. Google search, term = "Climate ethics", yields 14 million results. I picked several relevant ones from the first two pages of results and put them in the article's External links section. People might want to look at a few of them before voting 'delete'. They also contain source information that future editors could incorporate.

    The present article is drawn, largely verbatim, from publications of the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change organisation. It also describes the organisation. My approach to this article would be to condense this material and add new material from other sources to provide balance. Possibly a separate article on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change group could be started and some of the present material put there.

    I think what probably happened here is that the woman from Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change thought they had done some good writing on this subject, which they probably have, and decided to donate it to us. Not so terrible. La la ooh 0:58, 15 November

  • Strong keep. The idea is also used in the UN--Mac 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to change my delete stance with major improvements. I went to the sites that La la ooh pointed out, and have mixed feelings about them. They are either too closely tied to the author of the article (COI, OR, SYN, and POV issues) or they are blogs/forums, which historically have been deemed unreliable by the WP community. Right now, the article is not titled right, as La la ooh also pointed out, because it is not a comprehensive look at both sides of "Climate Ethics", but in fact only summarizes the EDCC stance and advertises for the White Paper that it published. As the article stands, even with the added resources, I still say delete, but there is hope for the subject itself with major improvements. It will remain on my watchlist, as I'm sure by the nature of the responses to this AfD that it will be kept. Keeper | 76 15:58, 15 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 Closed by non-admin article has already been subject to afd & result was Keep notability was established. This afd is obviously going the same way.RMHED 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PornoTube[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PornoTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was tagged as a G11 speedy by User:Siddhartha Gautama (now indef blocked) with the following rationale "advertisement of pornography website. References are dubious. Hundreds of references regarding pornography website or porn models can be found on internet. If a report about criminal appear in some newspager, then all criminals find place on wikipedia. No reliable, reputed source. This is attempt to advertise website on wikipedia." and two admins simultaneously came to opposing conclusions. With the deleting admins permission, I've restored the article for an AfD run to get some more input on it. Somewhat of a procedural nomination, so no opinion. henrik•talk 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not an obscure site. --- tqbf 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well referenced, notable, fits the bill just fine. Sounds like the indef blocked user was either trying to prove a point or ignore WP:CENSORED. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per lack of anyone actually wanting to delete it in this AFD. Referencing is fine, topic appears quite notable. The mainstream media usually doesn't want to touch "porno" websites with a ten foot pole and yet there are plenty of sources. That this was speedy deleted is pretty sad... the average admin's grasp of CSD seems to decrease every day. --W.marsh 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - help me out here, I'm sort of new: the previous AfD, from a while ago, was a unanimous keep. Why is this back here again? --- tqbf 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An inexperienced admin who speedy deleted the article... I just don't think he really looked at the article or realized there was a previous unanimous keep AFD. Accidents happen... hopefully he'll be more careful now. This discussion should be closed as a speedy keep by an uninvolved admin. --W.marsh 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Because of people disagreeing with consensus. Maybe a bad faith nomination, or maybe the article has changed significantly in the mean time, I don't know. These things just happen. Just yesterday, one guy nominated an article about a Canadian politician who's about as famous in Canada as Condoleeza Rice is in the US. --Blanchardb 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the deleting admin indicated he didn't think it would be kept at an AfD-discussion when I asked about the deletion is what prompted this AfD. henrik•talk 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know. That's what you said. Actually, I was referring to the original CSD nomination by the sockpuppeteer. --Blanchardb 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So then... in the interests of furthering my undeserved, free education in WP process... why is this AfD still open? It was a vociferous unanimous prior keep. --- tqbf 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. JJL 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The refs from Google News cited by --- tqbf above appear to satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 03:12, 13 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. Though Ceyokey's merge doesn't sound like a bad idea. -Splash - tk 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentFreak.com[edit]

TorrentFreak.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Web site of questionable notability. Of sources cited, only one is "reliable" - remainder of third-party sources are all blogs. Previously speedy-deleted under A7, and recreated by original author. The history has been restored for your perusal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version at time of AFD nomination: permalink --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Pagerank is 6/10 which is unusually high for this type of site so it might be important enough to warrant an article. WP:RS are required though. Exxolon 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how blogs don't make reliable sources. They're only unreliable if you prove them to be providing false information, in which case you'd want that blog not to be used as a source. I do understand that a lot of blogs are unreliable, but to state that all blogs are unreliable as sources is absurd. I was told that it was deleted because the article didn't prove it's significance. A pagerank of 6/10, a top 50 dugg site, and multiple interviews with the creator regarding the blog should be sufficient to call it significant. I don't understand how it's sources are any less reliable than the majority of the articles on Wikipedia. Just because it comes from a blog does NOT mean that it's unreliable, and to assert so is ridiculous. Richiemcintosh 23:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Anyone with some change in their pocket can publish a blog online. Generally, blogs do not have the same editorial screening of traditional media, hence they are rarely considered a reliable source. --Madchester 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, however, I think an interview transcript posted on a blog is just as reliable as anything you'll find. I was only referencing the interview text on a single post, not the blog itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.159.112 (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This blog broke the news that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, a story that was later picked up by the Associated Press (major international wire service) after further testing. It is frequently Dugg and is a reasonably reliable, if biased, source on file sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.182.80 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are two non-blog sources in the references.... Richiemcintosh 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep seems rather notable, but unsure. Doc Strange 07:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google news TorrentFreak is also indexed by Google news, so it has at least some credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.106.221 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is every torrent site notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TorrentFreak is a news blog, not a regular BitTorrent site.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Kennedy[edit]

George C. Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability for George C. Kennedy, a political "consultant". Reads like a resumeé. Keeper | 76 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what i messed up, but the "text" is supposed to say: "no assertion of notability for George C. Kennedy, a political "consultant". Reads like a resumeé." If you know how to fix the subst, please do. Keeper | 76 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DMacks 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks DMacks. Keeper | 76 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Support for notability seems lacking. States "Dozens of Kennedy's spots have won advertising awards throughout the past 20 years"—an award-winning ad producer would be notable if we had specific refs to these awards. Otherwise, sounds like just another political consultant: every manjor politician has many of these, nothing that special solely on this merit. DMacks 23:16, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaro Starak[edit]

Yaro Starak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable blogger. The article is promotional in tone and while sourced, the sources do not seem to me to be independent of the source subject. Mattinbgn\talk 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom without non "in-universe" citations. (read: not notable.) Good luck in you business endeavours Mr. Starak, hopefully one day you'll be notable enough for Wikipedia. But not yet. Keeper | 76 00:10, 13 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 to Interstate 76 (west). Treating this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Colorado in a joined-up fashion, I'm going to merge them both back. This is because I think the cut of each debate is to do so and the same overall feeling arises when considering the two debates together. Clearly, there is no point in treating the two articles differently as their AfDs do not identify them as needing separate treatments. -Splash - tk 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 76 in Nebraska[edit]

Interstate 76 in Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Interstate 76 (west), this article is for a 3 mile stretch of highway. SALT ad redirect. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 12 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 to Interstate 76 (west). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Nebraska for detailed rationale.-Splash - tk 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 76 in Colorado[edit]

Interstate 76 in Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is redundant to Interstate 76 (west). SALT and redirect. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This article has a lengthy history, and is referenced by a reliable source. And define SALT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo42 (talk • contribs) — Mo42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Interesting first edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:SALT, which Rschen7754 should have at least linked to. --NE2 07:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked on this article, and like the other person said, "it is referenced by a reliable source." Did they check the source? 72.130.41.48 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article covers a route that is at least 50 miles long. Sure, it can use imporovement for the section "Route description", but its "History" section is neat and well-covered. It can possibly use more references. Anyways, I vote for keep! Alittlegoo 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, we don't need this article, this can just go on the Interstate 76 (west) article.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against recreation. The remainder of this route (in Nebraska) is only 3 miles long. We do not need state-detail articles here; everything can be covered in Interstate 76 (west). —Scott5114↗ 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really? So why don't Interstate 78 in New York be deleted then if that would be the case? That article covers a mere 1 mile and the article is still standing. Now why not an article with 180 miles? If might as well delete, why don't we merge the information covered in Interstate 78 in New York to Interstate 78? 72.130.41.48 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice double voting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're not allowed to vote twice? What about adding onto your first message? 72.130.41.48 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you're not allowed to vote twice. —Scott5114↗ 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the I-78 in NY article has way to much significant history and is about a short road that enters the most populous city in the country, compared an redundant article on a 3 mile road.—JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • [double edit conflict] The reason why I-78 in NY is still there is because there are lots more interesting history than the two parts of I-76 (W) combined. Wikipedia is inconsistent. O2 (息 • 吹) 22:38, 12 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Obvious Deleteredirect (merge) to I-76 (W), and SALT the redirect. There is no reason at all to split Interstate 76 (west) into state-detail articles, as all but three miles are located in Colorado. Thus, the entirety of the route can easily be covered in I-76 (W). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I haven't come to Wikipedia in a while, I still believe that this article is notable as it contains enough information to stand on its own. Notable articles SHOULD be kept. D-Otani (I'm NOT a teacher!) 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into Interstate 76 (west). There's nothing more to say about the portion in Nebraska, so there's no need for separate articles. This is not a typical split into state-detail articles, but is more akin to splitting Interstate 684. --NE2 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Rschen7754's nomination, since highways have no inherent notability, and this road portion lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage to satisfy WP:N. Edison 03:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Highways do have an inherent notability, but this particular portion doesn't need an article. —Scott5114↗ 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NE2. ----DanTD 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NE2 master sonT - C 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Interstate 76 (west) and Salt; this is totally redundant. I-76 runs all of three miles in Nebraska and as such, all can and should be covered in the parent article. --Mhking (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contingent on Interstate 76 in Colorado being merged, then Merge also. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:23, 18 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. Though I have to say it is obviously silly to have two so closely similar articles separate from one another, and it strikes me that people are being needlessly difficult about the point. Evidently we're not looking at deletion, though, so discussion elsewhere is needed to work out what properly to do. -Splash - tk 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Poulin[edit]

Robert Poulin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing here to write a biography about. If he were still alive, this could be deleted under WP:BLP1E. I have been trying to redirect this page to the article on the shooting, but it keeps getting reverted. The article basically repeats what's in the stubby school shooting article. Corvus cornix 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This person is historically significant as he was the first High School shooter in Canadian history. There was a book written about him called "Rape of a Normal Mind" ISBN 0-7701-0025-2 cited at the article. There are other citations in the article supporting the occurrence, which happened before the Internet became popular. Chessy999 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Chessy999. The same BLP1E argument would apply to Christopher McCandless, which seems like a similar situation, WP-wise --- tqbf 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge with St. Pius X High School shooting. Although the article is weak, and although it is verbatum the same as this, I think it's possible to let someone make the article better by merging the two together in a more comprehensive look at things. As a side note, be careful using other articles as defense, it will easily become a OTHER complaint. I agree that the article is short because of its pre-internet occurence and vehemently agree that things like this CRAP don't belong here just because they happened this year. Keeper | 76 23:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)z[reply]
Comment: I disagree - both articles are stand alone articles and should be left alone. This is about an AFD for Robert Poulin if you want to AFD the other then post it there. Chessy999 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - uhhhhhh, both articles had (until this afternoon) exactly the same content. One of them's got to go. --- tqbf 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, then post an AFD and not a #Redirect because I disagree, one is a bio and one is the incident just like all the others ex.: Kimveer Gill and Dawson College Shooting Chessy999 02:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't exactly the same article. These two are. Exactly. The same. --- tqbf —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep good, well sourced stub. Artw 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this stub any different from the stub about the shooting? Where is the biography here? Corvus cornix 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this stub is not notable outside the "shooting" stub. There is no need for two separate stubs that say the exact same thing. Keeper | 76 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. Get rid of St. Pius X High School shooting; "Robert Poulin" + shooting gets far more hits. --- tqbf 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • GHITS ≠ notability. Two stubs with the exact same language = one article, with a redirect. Keeper | 76 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course I agree. #REDIR the St. Pius article. --- tqbf 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable. Nick mallory 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Pius X High School shooting. The action rather than the person is what's notable here, and there's absolutely no need for two essentially identical articles. Deor 03:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a book was written about him, he's notable. discuss possible merges elsewhere.DGG (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Poulin is not notable outside of his act of violence. St. Pius X school shooting is notable but not without its shooter. The two "articles" are inseparable without valid, independent resources. The proof is in the indentical stubs. There is nothing to say about R.Poulin except that he shot people. An article titled "...shooting" is going to be basically about the shooter. Same article. (and please don't bring up higher profile cases like Columbine and Red Lake as examples to keep both - the key is independent, reliable sources.) To those citing this book, (which, BTW, is out of print, unavailable, and completely obscure) has anyone actually read it? Saying "the book is about him" is not necessarily true, DGG, unless you've read it. Is the book about Robert Poulin or is it about the shootings at SPXHS, perpetrated by Robert Poulin? Would a book about Robert Poulin exist without his one act of violence? Inseparable. My opinion is to delete both articles and merge the content into the St. Pius X High School (Ottawa) main article. Keeper | 76 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would a book about the shooting exist without him? Would a book about the school exist without him--and the incident. The three are obviously related. A single really notable event is enouuh to make all three notable. DGG (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to take the first school shooting in Canadian history and merge it into an article about a school nobody has ever heard of? --- tqbf 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. To be fair, nobody has ever heard of Robert Poulin, SPXHS, OR SPXHS Shooting. Schools, especially high schools, are, IMO, notable just by existing. (although their articles are frequently targets of HS aged vandals who are bored in study hall.) Without significant, independent sources, it doesn't matter if this claims to be the first, (or the worst, or the bloodiest, etc and et al and blah and blah and blah). I can write an article that says Joe Blowsmith shot people at his Vancouver school in 1969 and a book was written about him. Rightfully, this article would be deleted unless I could prove it independently. I stated earlier that it is unfortunate that "pre-internet" events are poorly covered on the internet and things like Panda sneeze get articles instead of school shootings and other significant events. But, I digress. This isn't the place for that general a subject. Keeper | 76 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has ever heard of Robert Poulin, SPXHS, OR SPXHS Shooting? There's a book about it, and a ton of G hits. And it's not news; it's an historical event. --- tqbf 18:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It seems this AFD is the result of a failed attempt to merge/redirect the article without discussion on the part of Corvus cornix[1]. Perhaps a better approach would have been to discuss merger on the article talk pages? This just seems like an attempt to do an end-run around the regular concensus based process Artw 17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a dupe article at St. Pius X High School shooting and some debate as to whether the incident is notable or belongs as a section in the article St. Pius X High School (Ottawa). It seems like something is going to be deleted. --- tqbf 18:09, 13 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. Kurykh 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MS User[edit]

MS User (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I doubt that this article meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements. There are no references and no external links. For all I know, it is entirely original research. Furthermore, the article is misleading, implying that the forged @msdn.com and @ms.com e-mail addresses are the actual source of the messages. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this thing has been here for 3 1/2 years with no sources. Corvus cornix 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't doubt that the content is probably true, but "probably" isn't good enough. References are needed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:45, 13 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. Kurykh 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson[edit]

Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entire article is one huge BLP violation. And none of the sources is reliable. Corvus cornix 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, and would go as far as suggesting speedy deletion might be in order, given the unsourced allegations about several living people. The GQ articles would presumably be considered to be a reliable source, but they are listed as external links and the article contains allegations that are not supported by these articles (including anything after 1994, when they were published.) On a less serious note, I find the mispelling in the title, and the fact that it has not been corrected for 2 and half years, a very discouraging sign for the accuracy of the article --Slp1 23:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the supposed GQ article is not hosted on a GQ website, but on another site altogether, with no evidence that anything in the article really has anything to do with GQ at all. Corvus cornix 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a BLP minefield. If it's kept, fix the spelling of the title. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for reliable sources. Side note, the mispelling in the title is relatively recent (it was redirected Nov 1 2007 from "1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson", which was the long standing title (see Michael Jackson controversies for verification of this). Irony ensues; this article didn't have any attention until it was redirected to the misspelled title. Still, I would say delete without sources for the BLP issues. Surely good sources can be found?? Keeper | 76 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the name change thing, I looked carefully, but not in the right place it seems. One learns something new everyday! Slp1 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced POV rubbish. Neil ☎ 10:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dismal quality of sourcing for such serious allegations against not just one but multiple living persons. Badly written polemic (that's a fancy word for soapboxing, something that Wikipedia isn't for) into the bargain. Hmm, that's really just repeating what Neil said: badly sourced POV rubbish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If this article is deleted, the point is moot, but if it is kept, will someone please fix the title to be spelled correctly? I'll do it myself if I notice it first. Keeper | 76 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Does the info in Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson articles are enough for this stuff? That's a very bad article--JForget 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utter garbage, no reliable sources, a magnet for vandals and editors keen on speculation and vulgarity. Unsalvagable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Smear article against the young man who made the allegations against Jackson. Ineptly handled closure of November 17 debate has turned "Molestaion allegations" into a redirect to this. Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 17 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 CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Angelo 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queenston parliament[edit]

Queenston parliament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am not sure what level of United States soccer the Buffalo & District League operates at, but this article does nothing to establish the club's notability and should therefore be deleted. - PeeJay 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. - PeeJay 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it looks like some kind of recreational league. The only Ghits for "Queenston parliament" are MySpace and a Web forum with one post. Corvus cornix 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:53, 12 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. Kurykh 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin Smash[edit]

Gaijin Smash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately, this article violates almost every major Wikipedia policy there is. A Lexis-Nexis search for "Gaijin Smash" produces not a single independent publicly-verifiable source per WP:VER (in fact, there were no articles at all); the sources the WP article does provide either link back to unreliable blog entries, dubious internet sites without a clearly described editing and oversight structure, and/or sometimes the subject site itself calling into question WP:RS and (more importantly) blatant advertising issues; and finally, it contains several unverifiable assertions using weasel words that try to puff-up the importance of the subject matter, suggesting original research. My vote: delete. J Readings 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - well-known blog. Agree that the tone is inappropriate. WP:SOFIXIT. Could probably stand to be cut down significantly. Should not be cut out. --- tqbf 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Abstain - am familiar with the blog, but have no good response to the arguments below. --- tqbf 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Asahi Shimbun is a reliable source. Powers T 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We need more objective evidence than one article that briefly mentions the subject. Where did all the information in this WP article come from? Certainly not the Asahi Shimbun, which (granted) briefly mentions the website. Where are the other independent publicly verifiable sources to support this article's notability? We need at least two publicly verifiable, reliable and independent sources from the subject that are not blogs. What are they? I'm asking. J Readings 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking this a bit personally. I also think it's bad form to AfD an article and, at the same time, litter it with templates (though the inline {{fact}} tags are useful, and thank you). You are using terms like "weasel words" and "advertising" to describe an article that has a diversity of (apparently) good-faith edits from different users. You seem to be making a better argument for cleaning this article up than for deleting it. Just a thought, though. --- tqbf 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: thanks for the comment, but in all honesty, I don't take these issues personally. Had the term "Gaijin smash" produced at least two independent articles connected to its name, I would have happily added them. Unfortunately, Lexis-Nexis, Factiva and Google News produced nothing connected to the subject. As you know, that is never a good sign about the notability of an WP article. Best regards, J Readings 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News, business, and legal sources are not exactly the sorts of publications where one would expect to find information on this topic. Powers T 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of being as thorough as possible, I also checked Worldcat (for keyword and title mentions within books), "ArticleFirst" (for mentions in thousands of different publications), and a few other high-powered search engines that scan thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of different newspapers, magazines, books, doctoral dissertations, and other reliable sources. Nothing surfaced. No mentions made of "Gaijin Smash". I'm surprised that you continue to suggest that "Gaijin Smash" is notable. But in good-faith, I'll repeat the original question: what publicly verifiable, independent, reliable sources would you recommend? J Readings 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Gaijin Smash" OR "I am a Japanese School Teacher" --- tqbf 00:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I repeated the process to include tqbf's suggested keyword searches. I also included the author's name (Jeff Windham) and its various permutations. I'm afraid that nothing surfaced in any of the several search engines that I tried. Per Wikipedia policy, "Gaijin Smash" or "I am a Japanese School Teacher" or Jeff Windham do not seem to be notable subjects. J Readings 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the blog is a publicly verifiable, reliable source for its own existence (if this is tqbf's point). But is there any independent evidence for either (a) the significance or notability of this outside the blogosphere, or (b) the unusually great significance or notabiity of it within the blogosphere? As it is, all I see is a brief description within a single online article about blogs. -- Hoary 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I'm watching this AfD and will consider any putative evidence of particular notability. -- Hoary 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Hoary 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another minor blog not worthy of an encyclopedia article despite references Fg2 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor internet sensation. Has seriously lost following. Lasted maybe 12 months max. that's a blip.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is kinda interesting read, but essentially this is about a blog site, right? Unless we have some significant sources, the topic just doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. <rant>too bad, we still have yet to have articles of this quality on many other important topics.</rant> -- Taku 08:55, 16 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. Kurykh 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kasparov (Disc jockey)[edit]

Kasparov (Disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC). No sources. All original research. Themindset 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. A fairly standard case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keeper | 76 22:18, 13 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. Daniel 07:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Battalion[edit]

Justice Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictioal team appeared in less than three pages of one issue of a mini-series; fails test for notability. Article on main subject Kingdom Come (comic book) provides sufficient information on this topic. Konczewski 21:19, 12 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoma[edit]

Evoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find any secondary sources for this company, and it seems like nobody has edited the page except for someone who probably owns/works for the company (they have done almost no other wiki editing), and the well-meaning editor who tagged the page for notability. It seems fairly well written and reasonably neutral, which is why I listed it here. Nonetheless, Delete. Gump Stump 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - stub article doesn't even assert notability. --- tqbf 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It sort of asserts notability (claiming it is a chain) then contradicts it saying there is one location with a second on the way. It looks like a simple pair of full service office buildings. I can't find any sources, but if they confirm what the article says they would only confirm that there's nothing special about them that needs an article.Wikidemo 10:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any internet-based sources that don't seem to have been generated by the self-promoting folks at this company (nothing wrong with self-promotion, just not right for Wikipedia). Not notable in North American terms, certainly (there are five or six of these buildings in Vancouver alone). And a note to the article's creator -- "chain" implies more than one link. Accounting4Taste 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When it says "chain of business incubation centers", it means serviced offices. Fails WP:SPAM. ---- Gavin Collins (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --- FrankTobia (talk) 21:27, 16 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iniquity Collective[edit]

The Iniquity Collective was a group of four villains from the JLU of the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.18.249 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iniquity Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This group appeared for less than five minutes in one episode of Batman Beyond. Fails the test for notability Konczewski 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:31, 12 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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus, the nominator might like to consider adding the appropriate merge tags to the articles concerned. RMHED 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big O (mecha)[edit]

Big O (mecha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merge Back and Delete Pointless article to have, merge back into Megadeus. -The Big X 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want it deleted after merged back into Megadeus. -The Big X 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging always leaves behind either a redirect or nothing. If you decide the title Big O (mecha) is an unsuitable redirect after the merger, then it would be deleted for that reason. I'm telling you this is not the place to request a merge. Leebo T/C 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it leave a redirect if it is just being merged back into the article it came from? This is not really a merge discussion, the article was taken out of Megadeus, and I say put it back and delete it. -The Big X 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I recall correctly, it would violate the GDFL to merge and delete. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean GDFL? -The Big X 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. :) Hence, the requirement set out at WP:MERGE that the emptied page be labeled "#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}" and that the title of the destination article be noted in the edit summary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be the main "mech" in an anime series about "mechs" Doc Strange 07:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not the venue for merger discussions. I've been seeing a lot of these merger type AfDs recently. Perhaps this "merger argument" should be added to WP:ATA. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given the length of the article and the Megadeus article, that the article is well sourced, contains an out-of-universe perspective, and includes a smidgen of real world information about the mecha presence in another franchise, it should be find as a stand alone article. --Farix (Talk) 12:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider merge proposal per Help:Merging and moving pages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on procedural grounds and open a merge discussion on the page itself. An AfD is not a cleanup proposal venue. —Quasirandom 22:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Not even the nom wants to delete it. Toohool 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someguy0830 is right, merging and deleting would violate the terms of the GFDL, which states that all contributions have to be attributed to the user who provided them. Merging and deleting would result in the appareace of said contributions coming from the user who makes the merge rather than the original contributors. Leebo T/C 19:51, 14 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 --JForget 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased Desperate Housewives characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of deceased Desperate Housewives characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unnecessary, redundant list. All of the characters listed here are either already listed at List of Desperate Housewives characters or are very minor characters that do not need listed. Additionally, the list topic seems rather trivial and crufty. I proposed it for deletion a few days ago, but the proposal template was removed by an anonymous editor today. CrazyLegsKC 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add to List of deceased wikipedia articles. Listcruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of these characters are already listed on the other Desperate housewives character list. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary per nom. Nothing to merge. – sgeureka t•c 03:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary list, props for the commitment, but still useless. dr.alf 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete listcruft Doc Strange 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really unncessary when we can add "deceased" in the normal LoC Will (talk) 19:40, 13 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. Daniel 07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft captured by Japan during World War II[edit]

List of aircraft captured by Japan during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a list with no clear importance and no sources. The notability of a specific model of aircraft being captured is not explained. Were they repurposed, or copied, or what exactly? The method is not explained either. Were they on airfields captures by Japanese ground forces? Were they shot down? Were they off course and lost? Without a reason this seems to be a loosely-connected topic and a collection of internal links. Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with zero prejudice against an article being created which actually deals with the ramifications of this list. Without actually discussing whether any technologies were 'lifted' from these aircraft, if any, how they were captured etc. (per nom) the list is unanchored and floating around with no purpose. Since there's no source either, actually garnering this info reliably and slotting it somewhere else is no less work than just writing it from scratch. Someone another 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if can be cleanued up, i.e. sourced or quantified. Chris 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see any encyclopedic metric of this article (or, actually, just a list). Why, for example, did Japan capture those aircrafts? That kind of question might be an interesting topic, but this article is not a place for that. -- Taku 08:51, 16 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IYAAYAS[edit]

IYAAYAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Phrase that is unencyclopedic and unsourced. Poorly written article that could probably never be more than a one sentence stub. IF the information is to be kept, it would be better served on a separate page. —ScouterSig 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic. JJL 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very strange subject, but not one I care to learn about. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:49, 13 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, after reading through all the nonhelpful material to find the opinions of Wikipedians, was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Podgorski[edit]

Michael Podgorski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:Mpodd6 is requesting that this article be deleted, because he claims to be the subject and does not wish to have an article about him. Typically, such requests are not allowed if the subject is notable, but the subject is described as an amateur boxer and the article has no sources to establish notability, so I figured a discussion would be appropriate in this case. This is pretty much just procedural as User:Mpodd6 doesn't have a grasp of deletion policy yet; I'm not submitting an opinion. Leebo T/C 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since that page is already listed as an external link, it's possible that the main text of the article could be determined viable while the stastical info is removed. Leebo T/C 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know what you guys are talking about but i am michael podgorski and i just want this entire article to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.212.170 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Please note that no one owns articles on Wikipedia, so no one has absolute control over them. This includes subjects and their Wikipedia articles. Articles cannot be removed solely because the subject desires their removal. The article must be found to be unacceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I believe you may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so that's why I've nominated the article for deletion, not because you requested it. Leebo T/C 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i don't care what reason you have for deleting it. the whole article is false, i am michael podgorski and i don't want it up anymore. what is with you people, everyone is on a power trip.

Reply, I'm sorry you see it as a "power trip" but since we have no way of verifying the identity of users we cannot take such requests at face value. The article will likely be deleted and I'm helping you, so please allow the deletion policy to play out. Leebo T/C 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok ok ok, it just seemed like you were really making i point to tell me that you weren't nominating it because i requested it. i don't know all the rules of this site but all i know is the whole article is b.s. i'm not even a boxer i sell tv's at best buy. i can verify i'm mike podgorski just come by best buy on harlem i'll get you a great deal on a new sony plasma tv and i'll show you my id while you buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Have you considered the possibility of someone having the same name who is a boxer? Leebo T/C 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the picture the link sends you to is a picture of me but all the stuff written is false, i just want it off of here because all my friends are looking at it and teasing me and it's really embarrasing and i am trying to hook up with this girl MEGAN and if she see's this she won't go out with me and that will CRUSH me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=171046384&oldid=171045349 This kid sells TV's at BEST BUY. I bought one from him last week. After he sold it to me and old lady had her purse stolen. Mike found the guy and knocked him out. He looked like a boxer to me but that can't be because i bought a TV from him 2 minutes earlyer[reply]

Reply We can't do anything about the site with that picture. Are you implying that the Matthew Podgorski and Pete Podgorski are fabricated/about your family? Also, you do realize that this shouldn't come as a surprise; you edited the article months ago]. Leebo T/C 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also made this edit to Pete Podgorski. Why is that? Deor 21:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are cock blocker Megan loved this guy now she thinks he is a boxer and that is not true

it's not a surprise, it's a surprise that you have a problem with me taking down a page about me that is b.s. to begin with. you want a tv or not?

listen to me you boneheads. i am michael podgorski, yes i edited pete podgorski's page, is that a crime? what i am telling you is that MY page is not true, and i want it down, is this clear or not?

  • Reply, so what you're trying to say is that you vandalized Wikipedia by fabricating a series of articles and now you want help getting rid of them because their intended purpose is backfiring? The discussion ends in 5 days, I'm done helping here. Leebo T/C 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i never "vandalised" anything, i was trying to make peace with the article but people kept messing with it. i just want the thing down, i told you i'd hook you up with a nice tv and your getting mean. do you wanna have a drink later, i'm free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Like I said, it'll come down at the end of the discussion in 5 days. The creation of bogus articles and subsequent request for them to be removed is a waste of everone's time, so I'm done discussing it. Leebo T/C 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, lets just call it a truce. i just need this article down if it's not down it will ruin my life. i need to get some action if you know what i mean, and i have a feeling my boss is checking wikipedia and if he see's that i'm history, come on man be a pal help me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I don't see how I owe you a favor here. If I delete the article out of process, I'm the one responsible for abusing my adminitrative tools and have to answer to that. You on the other hand get off with no repercussions for wasting my time. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned. Leebo T/C 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bro, you and me are the same, we're the SAME. do we not bleed when we get cut, do we not tire when we overwork. you don't owe me nothing, but you owe it to yourself. on your deathbed your gonna be wishing you helped out your fellow man a little more, and i'm a fellow, man. i told you i'd hook you up with a new tv, just give me your email address and i'll email you the best buy catalog for tv's for this christmas. i don't forget a favor, ask anybody about mike from mulberry st. So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.120.4 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm confused. mpodd6, are you the person described in this article, or a different person with the same name? You edited Pete Podgorski last year, adding a sentence that described Michael Podgorski as an amateur boxer. Now you are saying that Michael Podgorski is not an amateur boxer. Which is the truth? Powers T 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i am the person in this article, but there are many falsities within the article. people are editing it as well with more false information, therefore i would just like to have the entire article deleted. i am nobody, nobody cares if i exist...—Preceding unsigned comment added by mpodd6 (talk • contribs)
      • What in the article is inaccurate? Is this not your website? Powers T 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even assuming that the article is factually correct (and the subject admits that the photo at the externally linked site, of someone engaged in a boxing match, is of him), no reliable sources to satisfy verifiability are evident. An amateur boxer who has fought only sporadically over a period of years doesn't seem notable enough for WP. Deor 22:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point...thank you, take me off

everyone in wikipedia is acting like communists, they keep erasing my comments on what is supposed to be an open forum to discuss this topic

i guess that's what happens though, when people test the system they get silenced. nobody wants me to tell my side of the story, they just use their power and erase what i say, real fair.

Reply only abusive or irrelevant comments have been removed. Leebo T/C 22:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not my website, it was created by someone else, that's my point.

i'm not erasing your comments, please don't erase mine. i just want this article down, it's false, yes i've made edits to it, but i didn't know how to erase it. now is the time. what is the big deal, i'm not famous, i'm not your kunta kinta anymore

hey leebo i thought you were done with this. just when i thought you were out they pull you back in.

  • Please sign your comments. If that's not your web site, then this article isn't about you; it's about some other person with the same name as you. There's no need to get upset. Powers T 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i have been told to take my time and write a well-written explanation of what's going on here, so i will do so. the external link, the website is about me, but has not been written by me. the facts on that website are untrue, and they are the basis for the article on wikipedia. yes, i have made edits to it, but i didn't know how to delete it. i am not a significant person in the history of boxing, i was only an amateur boxer. nobody can verify anything about me, therefore i feel i should have my article deleted. and i'm not signing my comments because i don't know how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Use ~~~~ to sign your posts. You've said your piece, but I don't think you can speed this along any faster by commenting further. I think it's likely the article will be deleted, because there's only the one source and it's not reliable. More than that we really cannot do, since the article is not derogatory. Powers T 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:NOTE, WP:BIO and WP:V. There would be no harm in snowballing this, I think. --Malcolmxl5 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. You could "blank" the entire article while the discussion is going on, and although someone could revert the edit to put the text back, I doubt that they would do so. Until it's deleted, prior versions can be read at any time. I don't normally recommend blanking an article, but in this case, nobody would miss it. Mandsford 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the AfD notice on the article does say "the article must not be blanked … until the discussion is closed." Let's not encourage the newbies to ignore procedure; who knows where such an attitude might lead? Antinomianism—nay, anarchy—might become rife among visitors to our little encyclopedia. Deor 02:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I seem to have been sucked into this by Mpodd6 having made an error of posting the message below on my talk page as Anon user User:160.79.212.170.

i am mike podgorski and i erased my page because i do not want it up there anymore. how do i delete the entire entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.212.170 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

However I had only reverted some vandalism by User:160.79.212.170 to the Rizzo (surname) article on the 18th of December 2006. Therefore this sparked my curiosity into action. On the same users talk page I noted that Admin DerHexer had left a message about vandalism on the Michael Podgorski article, so I took a look at his Talk page where I noted a similar type of entry, at the top of his page, but from Mpodd6:-

i don't know where else to post a message, but i want the page written about me deleted. you keep putting it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I note in User:Mpodd6's contributions, on the 23rd of February, this edit to the article:- Addition of USA Flag Icon, which tends to indicate he was inputting information into the article at that time, as opposed to getting it deleted, immediately prior to that he placed a {{sprotected}} tag which was then removed by User:DumbBOT

As it appears User Mpodd6 is also Anon User:160.70.212.170 it should also be noted that not only was the article for deletion request made by him as User:160.70.212.170, but also the creation of the article, along with all these further edits to the article, plus three to the Pete Podgorski article:-

  1. 22:07, 12 November 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Podgorski‎
  2. 22:01, 12 November 2007 - Talk:Michael Podgorski‎ (top)
  3. 22:00, 12 November 2007 - Talk:Michael Podgorski‎
  4. 21:30, 12 November 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎ (←Blanked the page)
  5. 18:16, 28 August 2007 - Michael Podgorski
  6. 15:08, 9 May 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  7. 15:08, 9 May 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  8. 17:06, 8 May 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  9. 17:03, 8 May 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  10. 17:02, 8 May 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  11. 20:50, 18 April 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  12. 15:43, 10 April 2007 - Michael Podgorski‎
  13. 15:42, 10 April 2007 - Michael Podgorski
  14. 23:26, 2 January 2007 - Pete Podgorski‎
  15. 23:25, 2 January 2007 - Pete Podgorski‎
  16. 23:25, 2 January 2007 - Pete Podgorski‎
  17. 22:58, 18 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎ (→See also)
  18. 22:58, 18 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski
  19. 22:35, 18 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎ (→Outside links)
  20. 22:34, 18 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski
  21. 21:21, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  22. 21:17, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  23. 21:12, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  24. 21:05, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  25. 21:03, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  26. 21:02, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  27. 21:02, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  28. 21:01, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  29. 21:00, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski‎
  30. 20:49, 15 September 2006 - Michael Podgorski

There are also other edits to different articles for example he has added Michael Podgorski to the List of male boxers:-

  1. 22:56, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of male boxers‎ (→P)
  2. 22:56, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of male boxers‎ (→Q)
  3. 22:55, 18 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of male boxers‎ (→Q)

If the article has actually been created and edited by Michael Podgorski, then there appears to be a conflict of interest here and I recommend he reads the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page.

I also note on this page several unsigned edits by Anon User:65.204.120.4, who seems to do a lot of vandalism entry edits, also has edits to the Michael Podgorski article so I suspect there is a touch of vandalism / hoax / sock puppetry going on here as well. EG:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=171046384&oldid=171045349 This kid sells TV's at BEST BUY. I bought one from him last week. After he sold it to me and old lady had her purse stolen. Mike found the guy and knocked him out. He looked like a boxer to me but that can't be because i bought a TV from him 2 minutes earlyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171047558 you guys are cock blocker Megan loved this guy now she thinks he is a boxer and that is not true

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171052436 Mike did you find that RAT, You know what to do when you find that rat don't you? (To which User:Mpodd6 added:-does my lipstick look alright, i said does my lipstick look alright? cause i'm getting f*cked, i wanna make sure my face looks alright)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171055195 So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door.

Perhaps all three users are the same person and a hoax has probably been set up here. However vandalism seems to be the purpose so I recommend that User:160.70.212.170, UserMpodd6, and User:65.204.120.4 be permanently blocked. Richard Harvey 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts in fully researching the history of these articles are appreciated, but I just wanted to note that IP addresses typically aren't blocked indefinitely, only because they tend to get recycled to other, innocent people at some point. User:65.204.120.4 happens to be blocked for 1 day because of the threatening comments he left in this discussion. Leebo T/C 13:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you recommend i be permanently blocked? your an idiot, so basically because you "suspect" that i'm three different users, i should be blocked? that is completely unfair, i am not three different users, i am mpodd6 and there is one other one i posted with which is my ip address, that's it. all you editors for wikipedia act like tyrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard may not be familiar with our blocking policy. We wouldn't block you for contributing with various IP addresses, since you weren't trying to conceal anything by doing so. The third IP address likely was not you, since your ability to post was not impeded by its being blocked. Leebo T/C 15:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't me, that's a fact. anyways i don't know why this has become such a big discussion, it's one meaningless, false article that will not be missed. if you get rid of it i will hook you up with the new "4k" tv by sharp that is coming out in a few months, i get a 50% discount at best buy and i will get you the tv for cost. come on BRO hook me up and i'll hook you up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only got this big because you did not explain the entire story from the beginning. It had to be slowly and painfully extracted. At this point, the discussion doesn't have to get any bigger. Come back in 4 days and the article will be gone. Also, please stop offering people things in return for excusing this mess; it's inappropriate and no one can actually follow up with you. Leebo T/C 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not inappropriate, it's the american way. somehow that got lost along the way. people can follow up, i work at the best buy in norridge, illinois. it's in the harlem and irving plaza. come by, ask for mike and i'll hook you up with whatever you need. I remember an America where payoffs were custom, where tipping wasn't a measily 15%, where people like jimmy conway could thrive. I remember an America where politicians could get their buddies jobs and take bribes from truckers to provide them with licenses without fear of restitution. America has become a land of snitches and cowards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE User:Mpodd6's continued attempts to disrupt the AfD due to his displeasure with it have resulted in his being blocked indefinitely. He will not be able to rebut further comments, though this doesn't seem likely to alter the outcome of the discussion. Leebo T/C 16:52, 14 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. No sources, no merge, as noted by a large number of people below. Daniel 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Quendor[edit]

Kings of Quendor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this article, as well as the related Zork articles:

The contents of these are almost entirely in-universe and looking at google searches and any sources on these articles, I could find nothing that satisfies WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of sources is a reason for deletion? I thought it was only ever a reason for tagging an article with {{unreferenced}}. The notability is a consideration for Zork, just as Star Trek Universe-related articles leave their notability consideration to the Star Trek article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 15:03Z
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no primary sources to indicate the source of this material, and no reliable secondary sources to denote notability. The articles provide no real world content. --Gavin Collins 09:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of sources is a reason for deletion? I thought it was only ever a reason for tagging an article with {{unreferenced}}. As for "no real world content", that's not a deletion criterion. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-13 15:03Z
  • Keep - A lack of sources is a reason for improving an article by adding sources, not deleting it. Brian0918 is correct about this. Rray 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources, if none exist, is a reason for deletion, as notability cannot be proved; as I stated, I could not find any reliable sources online that fit the criterion. David Fuchs (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kings, Merge the rest to Zork. There's just no call for listing all of the kings of Zork in Wikipedia, even in a larger article. The other articles are stand-alone topics that one might search for, and which should bring the user to Zork. -Harmil 18:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all as Zork is a seminal game in the history of gaming. 132.205.99.122 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both keep and merge into a single overview article but still keep the individual articles if readers want to know more. That way it satisfies any type of reader. The people unfamiliar with the subject or just wanting a brief description can read the overview article (Zork), and those familiar with the subject or just wanting to know more can read the more detailed Kings of Quendor article.--Neverpitch 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Um... merging but keeping the articles really isn't a solution... David Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How isn't it a solution? That would solve everything.--Neverpitch 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) — Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:KieferSkunk (Speedy delete - Hoax page.). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean "Babbit" Fury[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sean "Babbit" Fury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other than website and myspace, no ghits. Furthermore, for someone who founded a movement, you would think there would be more on google about you. Finally, "illegal bobcat hunting by means of organic chemical weapons"? Please CSD this as this is a walking blp violation (would have been CSD'ed but asserts some prima facia notability) spryde | talk 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; searched for permutations (Babbit, "Authentic Audio" --- barf ---); nothing. WP:ADVERT. --- tqbf 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - absolute junk. Already tagged. Exxolon 22:55, 12 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor (band)[edit]

Trevor (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This twice-speedied article (on A7) is back again. It is unsourced and may be a hoax. A search of Billboard's website reveals nothing on an album called "Dog on Coke" or "Queer in the Rain". There is no listing at AMG for either. No hits for "Trevor" & "Dog on Coke". No hits for Trevor & "Queer in the Rain". Suggest deletion and salting, unless some reliable sourcing can be produced to verify. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Number 6 on the Gambian sale charts?? Surely you must be kidding... Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Already did so myself. Jmlk17 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Do bands really live someplace? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:44, 17 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. The comment by Jay32183 was not refuted in any way which had a basis in policy. Daniel 07:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P scale (Babylon 5)[edit]

P scale (Babylon 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed by anon without comment, which, whatever. This concept has no real-world notability, no reliable sources to establish any such notability and, even within B5 is not all that notable except as a bit of plot exposition for the Psi Corps. Otto4711 20:00, 12 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 is no clear consensus, and the rewrite has further compounded the issue. Daniel 07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit (slang)[edit]

Fruit (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article is a textbook example of a dictionary definition. It's also unreferenced; there's no indication (not even an attempt to claim) that the term is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Powers T 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Dicdef and is never going to be anything more than that. This article is precisely what Wiktionary is for. Tx17777 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, with a mention that this slang term, while notable, is getting outdated. --Blanchardb 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Nonsense, this term has been used for decades both as a derogatory slur and also reclaimed by LGBT people. I will add refs when I have some time. I'm still on break from fighting homophobic vandals so this seems to fit right in. Benjiboi 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The matter being discussed here is not whether or not the term is notable. Except for the nominator, everybody here so far agrees with you that it is. The problem is, can this article be expanded so that it will have more than just a definition of the term? Simply adding references will not address this issue, even though it will satisfy the nominator's objection. For my part, I'm talking about transferring the article to a dictionary, not deleting it outright. --Blanchardb 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Expanding should hardly be hard. A quick Google book search using fruitcake turns up nearly 300 hits while Google scholar has 70+. Benjiboi 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Simply adding references" will not satisfy my objection. Please don't assume. Powers T 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever, you don't like the entry and everyone knows it, congrats. The prod to delete was removed and now you've AfD'd it so the stub will have to grow immediately. I have no aspirations of your objections being erased by the work that will take place nor do I expect your appreciation of LGBT culture and history to deepen. It would be a nice benefit but I will not hold my breath. Benjiboi 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Casting aspersions on my motivations is unproductive. You know nothing of my appreciation of LGBT culture and history. Nothing. Powers T 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As a disinterested third party can I suggest that nobody cares and that you two should take this to Talk? --- tqbf 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is full of "definitions" so that argument is moot. The term is notable, and still in use today both as a derogatory term and as a term of endearment by LGBT people. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This should just redir to Gay Slang, which already has a table of definitions. The "it's a definition" argument is not moot: WP:NOT#DICT. The "other definitions exist" argument is moot: WP:OTHERSTUFF. --- tqbf 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This term would not be appropriate for the gay slang article, as that is an article about slang that gay people use, and this is a slang term that homophobes use. To suggest placing it there would make as much sense as suggesting a merge between ni**er and African American. I sincerely doubt you would find that a good fit. Jeffpw 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From above, the term is "a term of endearment by LGBT people". I don't see why your distinction can't be drawn in Gay Slang, or why it means every "negative" slang word needs its own article.--- tqbf 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states that its use as a term of endearment is a way of reclaiming the word from its unsavory past. Much as African Americans have reclaimed that other offensive word, which has its own article, as you may have noticed. Jeffpw 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike this dicdef, the n-word article is extensively sourced, to sources discussing the word itself. --- tqbf 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're going in circles, tqbf. IN my first comment, I mentioned that Benjiboi already said he could expand it and source it, so that it wouldn't be a dicdef. I get the feeling you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Jeffpw 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you're right or you're wrong. I already voted delete. I'm just saying, there's a world of difference between the article you cited and the one up for AfD. This article can be merged.--- tqbf 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ni**er article developed over at least 5.5 years whereas this one now has less than 5 days. Perhaps we should not use AfD as clean-up and indeed try improving articles before deleting them per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, this article has existed for five months, not five days. And the point is that the word is just not as notable as the word "nigger" or the word "fuck" is. If it was just an issue of development, I'd tag it as such; instead I'm arguing that, as an encyclopedia, we should only have articles on words that have distinct, exceptional encyclopedic value beyond their base meanings. No amount of development can change that assessment, although finding some good references would be a good start to establishing this word's notability. Powers T 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, I was referring to the AfD process being five days for any substantial changes to be made. Benjiboi 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article can certainly be expanded to describe the history of the word, and I'm sure Benjiboi will find other facets which will educate. That is the point of this project, isn't it? Jeffpw 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Word histories belong in Wiktionary. This is an encyclopedia; our articles are properly about non-word concepts, not words, with the exception of a few words that have extensive notability beyond their definitions. Powers T 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, source and expand. This has potential as an article. Artw 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any dictionary word could have potential as an article, especially if you redirect all related terms to it. So, Hogwash. And The. Which is, ironically, a far better article. --- tqbf 03:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hogwash has no references, I imagine that should be deleted immediately and there is no The article - it's a redirect. Benjiboi 08:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash is a redirect, too. Powers T 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly an article that can be expanded and given a larger cultural context that a mere definition can not. Cherry picking those guidelines that support deletion, but ignoring guidelines that allow its inclusion makes the argument weaker (reread those links that are so readily whipped out when it suits, but this time read the whole guideline not just the part the supports your view). After an editor said he would work on this article, then we should give him a chance to do so. Responding that it can't or shouldn't be done is quite frankly not an argument, but petulance. Jacksinterweb 06:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Terminology of homosexuality (the term is already listed there). - jc37 02:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arbitrary section break[edit]

There seems to be a perception here that this nomination was performed with malice toward the LBGT community. My attempts at explaining otherwise have been thoroughly and inexplicably rebuffed, but I can only assure everyone with the utmost sincerity that there was no malice intended. I fully support gay rights efforts and abhor the discrimination and prejudice they face daily. This AfD has nothing to do with my feelings on homosexuality. It is purely based on the policy that clearly states that dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. Powers T 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thg policy also cleary makes exceptions: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness" Exceptions have been made before (former perjoratives such as "queer" and "dyke" being just two), and it is not just the "other stuff" that has slipped through the eagle eyes of those who only interpret half of WP:NOT. An editor said he would work on the article. We should take him at his word and give him time to expand it to an article that can pass muster. I take Powers' word that his/her motives aren't anti LGBT, but the absence of ill intent does not make the argument right. WP allows for a language that constantly changes and its guidelines reflect that by having flexibility written in. Hiding behind parts of WP:NOT or Otherstuff (and ignoring other guidelines) does not serve WP well. Jacksinterweb 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there's an obvious consensus forming around "keep" here, but the original AfD wasn't crazy talk: it was an unloved (Jul'07) stub article that very much appears to be redundant with (currently more useful) Gay Slang. The most vocal proponent of it is the article's original author. If this AfD debate results in an excellent article --- as Benjiboi's draft clearly seems to be on a path towards --- then we've all won. It's a bit creepy that LtPowers felt the need to assert not being a homophobe. --- tqbf 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I'm subject to the "doth protest too much" syndrome here, but Benjiboi's assertion that I have a shallow appreciation of "LGBT culture and history" compelled me to set the record straight. No pun intended. Powers T 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack by User:72.68.121.10 removed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm combining physical notes, a computer document and s-l-o-w-l-y getting items added. I have to go to bed for a bit but a very rough draft can be found here. Benjiboi 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is clearly a notable term. More reliable sources and expansion should probably occur, but a deletion to remedy this is rather absurd. — Save_Us_229 02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: It's a dic-def plain and simple, notability doesn't come into it. ---- WebHamster 03:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Fruitcake is also slang for a crazy person, as in "S/he's nuttier than a fruitcake". At least in the US and maybe the UK? This was very popular in the area I grew up, and as far as I knew had nothing to do with homosexuals. I didn't understand why a fruitcake meant a nutty person then. I thought it was because fruitcakes taste nasty. Who really likes to eat fruitcake, anyway? I mean really. Isn't there some type of joke about getting one for Christmas? Even fruitloops can mean offbeat/crazy, as in "loopy". Maybe that one is a regional thang though. I dunno. So there's more info that can be added to justify an article, re: origins. ~Jeeny (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF, not really notable on its own, and the listing in Terminology of homosexuality is suficient enough coverage. Tarc 15:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had hoped to do a basic rewrite and post results by now however I find trailing new leads and lack of sleep is not helping so I need to take a break. Knowing that it's still in drafting stage and not all the wikilinks have been vetted please feel free to visit the latest draft. Benjiboi 21:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. article re-written. Benjiboi 03:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you have done mighty fine work to this article, Benji. It went from nothing to a full-on piece of work. Rather than nominating it for AfD, maybe the nominator should have considered putting the work into it himself. You've proved deletion isn't always the best thing if only someone would take the time and do some work. Good on ya and thanks for all of your hard work on this article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I don't have access to most of those sources, I don't see how I could have even begun to duplicate this feat. Powers T 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; now that Benjiboi has rewritten the article to address the history of the term and its cultural significance, this is an encyclopedia article and not a dictionary entry. Allstarecho, I would not fault LtPowers for the original nomination; it was at the time a good candidate for transwiki, and I honestly would not have suspected that an article like this was possible. This one is an obvious keeper now. Closing admin: please take note of the particular arguments of the delete !votes prior to this rewrite (03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)), and consider whether they are now addressed. ··coelacan 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept this article should either be moved to "Fruit (gay slang)" or expanded to encompass all non-gay usages. Rather than repeat my entry on the article's talk page I'll just point interested editors to it. This article is LGBT biased and shouldn't be as its title does not reflect this. ---- WebHamster 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there slang uses of this word that are not gay? If so, please point them out, as I--and perhaps others--are entirely unaware of them. Jeffpw 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several uses that are cockney rhyming slang. I've listed a couple on the article's talk page. ---- WebHamster 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the research (what could be done within 2-3 days) what I saw was nearly every use of fruit slangs evolving into slurs against LGBT people that were later reclaimed by same and now both usages continue to exist like other words for LGBT people. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I considered whether two fruit slang articles made sense and it didn't, perhaps someday but for now it seems more appropriate to try to encompass verifiable usages in one article and, if possible, show how they are related. I replied to your talk page concerns and will summarized here as well - sections on fruitcake and Cockney rhyming slang (fruit = chum) was the only example I could find) have been added. Benjiboi 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, I wholeheartedly applaud Benjiboi's efforts in researching this topic. Such efforts were far above and beyond that required; merely finding sources which demonstrate the notability of a subject is usually sufficient for AfD purposes. However, I remain unfortunately unconvinced that this particular term is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I will admit that my bar for such content is very high, but I believe I am entitled to my opinion on that matter. To explain in more detail:
    • The first paragraph, the lede, is all right as far as it goes, but the mere fact that a slur has been "reclaimed" as a term of affection is not notable. "Nigger" is the obvious model here, but that word is notable for other reasons. Further, the references used to demonstrate that the word has been reclaimed are inadequate. The first one (marked (3), the Goodwin book) specifically mentions only "queer" and "faggot" as being reclaimed; "fruit" is, at best, implied. The second one (marked (4), nighttours.com) says nothing about the reclamation of the word and is merely an example of said reclamation. Using it as a source for the claim "Many modern pop culture references within the gay nightlife like 'Fruit Machine' and 'Fruit Packers' have been appropriated for reclaiming usage..." strikes me as original research.
Yes, I simply ran out of time and was compelled to post the latest draft for this AfD process. I appreciate specific constructive criticism and will try to figure out the best ways to address them asap between rewriting and references. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first section after the lede starts off with a discussion of Polari, the notability of which is not in question. (I note that the Polari article doesn't mention the word "fruit" as having entered mainstream slang, even though it clearly has.) Later, it gets into a detailed etymology of "fruit" in this sense. It's difficult to tell how well supported it is by the sources, however, as most of them are books not available online. Usage of such sources is perfectly fine, of course, but it makes it hard to use them to verify the statements in the article. Assuming good faith on the part of Benjiboi, though, the problem still remains that this is just etymology. It makes no attempt to assert the importance of the word, just its history. Etymologies remain the province of a dictionary, last I checked. (I also believe that the conclusion "...so transferring the meaning of fruitcake, nutty, to someone who is deemed crazy may have seemed rational at the time," needs a source but that may just be nitpicking.)
Hi, Those books are available online but apparently not universally. I'll add this to this list of items that need to be sourced. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest of the article is merely a series of examples of usage. In my opinion, examples of usage are not sufficient to demonstrate that a term has notability. Others are free to disagree, which is why we have these discussions.
In short, I could perhaps still be convinced if someone could point out which of the sources on the revised page specifically address the word "fruit", and not just as part of the larger topic of gay slang and slurs, but by itself as a notable topic. -- Powers T 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every usage example can be referenced as an example of a slur against LGBT people as well as a reclaimed usage by LGBT people and I will attempt to do so. Benjiboi 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wield WP:N as a terrifying weapon. My storied history of ruthlessly crushing hundreds of pages and making grown men and women cry has taught me how to swing this mace most effectively. WP:N's most glorious battles, the anticipation of which makes the steel cry out for blood, are those when the enemy is neutrally written promotional material, which the blade of WP:CSD#G11 cannot cut. It is unwise to take up this bludgeon against a term that is probably known to a majority of native English speakers. ··coelacan 19:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total ridiculousness. Benji has taken this article from nothing to an in-depth piece and you still aren't happy. Shameful. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We now know how you feel. --- tqbf 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect for your creative metaphor, I must point out that merely being "known to a majority of native English speakers" is not sufficient to establish notability; elsewise every word from "The" to "Here" to "Place" to "Frozen" to "Regardless" would have articles. Powers T 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point rather is that "WP:N-notability" is not something I look for on a topic like this, nor do I believe others should automatically assume it's a relevant measure. There are instances where any guideline does not apply and this is one. Some words sustain coverage beyond their etymologies, and some do not. I would consult a dictionary if I wanted to know more about "regardless"; I would not imagine that there's more to say than the etymology. Slang, though, often has quite a history, and as we can see, this term is one that support a substantial encyclopedia entry. It can't be transwiki'd to Wiktionary now, and it's not the sort of promotional material that WP:N was designed to handle. There's nothing else to do but keep it. Another way of looking at it is to say that all words indeed are notable, and that's why we have Wiktionary, but some words support whole encyclopedia articles. As tqbf says below, "WP:DICDEF is there to prevent articles that can never grow past being a stub" and Wiktionary is there to receive those articles. In noting all the above, I am not conceding any lack of "WP:N-notability" here, nor arguing for it; I am explaining why I'm not using that measure at all. Look at the subtypes for WP:N. What are they? All promotional material, because that's the purpose of WP:N. The only exception is "numbers" (because numbers, unlike English, are unbounded) and if we had "WikiNumbers" we'd just transwiki the perpetual stubs. Your opposition is noted, but it's now failing to sway the community over to your view. I've been in the saddle before, and I assure you you're welcome to keep riding this honorable steed, but you might get a more profitable return on your energy elsewhere. ··coelacan 11:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for misunderstanding your point; I think your otherwise fine metaphor obscured it a bit. =) Anyway, I disagree that there is a class of articles not subject to Wikipedia's notability requirements; our guidelines cover much more than just promotional material, and have been used to circumscribe allowable content in many different subject areas. I see no reason language should not be the same. Regardless, this is an area on which we can disagree. My points above remain—primarily, that mere examples of usage do not prove notability. While I may be beating a dead horse, I worry that the impressive array of sources Benjiboi has assembled might blind discussion participants to the quality of said sources in accomplishing the goal of proving notability. We could add hundreds of verifiable, reliable sources for the word "the" and they still may not be enough to prove its notability for an encyclopedia article. Regardless, I hope my constructive criticism above remains useful. Powers T 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are to worry about others being blinded by Benjiboi's words! Thank goodness we have your wisdom to counter prosaic trickery. Sure the words you used seem patronizing and arrogant, but sometimes you need to be rude to get through to the less intelligent. And indeed we have learned from your constructive criticsim. We learned grace is for suckers. We learned arrogance may not always work, but it sure makes us feel important. We learned that if we feel we might not get our way, we can call everyone else idiots and that's the same as being right. I would send you a barnstar or something if I were not still blinded by Benjiboi's words.GptVestal (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep (changed from above) - WP:DICDEF is there to prevent articles that can never grow past being a stub. Whatever the problems of this new version might be, stubbiness is not one of them. --- tqbf 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: I had left my opinion off because, really, the this version was simply terrible. Having seen the current version, with 40+ references and ~14K char in well written length, it's clear it's a keeper. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The only argument against it seems to be that it is more of a dictionary entry. I disagree. The article goes into signifiantly more depth than just a definition, it is well referenced and otherwise meets the qualifications of a Wikipedia entry. I would say the objections are bogus. TechBear (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't originally. The AfD motivated Benjiboi to rescue the article. I doubt it would have been AfD'd in its current state. --- tqbf 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everything else is outside the scope of this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues of notability are not outside the scope of the AfD, as I brought them up with the nomination. Powers T 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article substantially improved since nomination. Good job. I too would have brought it here in it's initial state, thinking that there wasn't much to improve, but here we are. The article is a good start at an interesting, encyclopedic work, and can hardly be argued to be a dictionary definition any longer. ➪HiDrNick! 15:24, 17 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. W.marsh 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Mobb[edit]

Oak Mobb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Someone tried to list this at AfD, checked over the article myself. Non-notable gang from northern Virginia, no reliable sources. ~Eliz81(C) 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7, no assertion of notability. Powers T 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - NN group, A7, per nom - Alison ❤ 20:27, 12 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 --JForget 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Family Guy (season 1)[edit]

Censorship in Family Guy (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article makes absolutley no sense. The description is misleading, it says "Here, the edits made to season 1 are listed.", but there in fact is only 1/7 of the episode, only the pilot episode. And it's already explained in Death has a Shadow, if that's not the right place, nothing is. My point is this article serves no purpose. TheBlazikenMaster 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) :Withdraw I will give the article a little more time, it's unfair that this article gets removed after only 2 days. TheBlazikenMaster 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you sure? I came here to say I think it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you don't want to nominate it, I will. Regardless of how long this article has been around and whether or not it's finished, I really don't see it going anywhere. At the moment, all it contains is content which has been taken almost directly from Death has a Shadow, and I don't really see how the creator intends to expand on this. The individual episode articles should be more than adequate to cover this. Tx17777 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't abuse the speedy criteria. G1 is only for patent nonsense, that is, content that is unintelligible. This article clearly doesn't meet that criterion. Powers T 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. Powers T 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a cut'n'paste or similar fork from a section of the Death Has a Shadow episode page. Not really sure it belongs anywhere, but it's at least on-topic and doesn't require specific notability there. I can imagine a viable (citedly notable) article about syndication cuts or last-minute broadcast changes, but we'd need some pretty specific refs to make the idea specifically notable with respect to a certain season of a certain program. DMacks 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Powers and Mack pretty much say why I think it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A stretch at best to be its own article outside the proliferation of famly guy articles that already exist. Keeper | 76 00:52, 13 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 to City of London Police. Davewild (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Hill Police Station (London)[edit]

Snow Hill Police Station (London) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An absolutely non-notable small police station in central London with no particularly significant history or architectural merit. Its only weak claims to notability are an appearance in a videogame and the fact of being the nearest police station to the Old Bailey. There are 188 police stations in London alone (plus many others that are closed), and I can't see any reason to have articles on those other than those with some historic notability. (The one "fact" in this article not to be a piece of video-game trivia is incorrect; the building is on a side-road and the nearby major road (the A40 road) runs east-west and does not meet the river until Oxford, around 70 miles away.) Bringing it to AfD rather than {{prod}}ding in order to generate some kind of consensus on the broader issue of whether such buildings are notable. — iridescent 19:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I know London well, this police station is less than half a mile away from the River Thames. Snow Hill is off Farringdon Street, which is the main road leading to the bank of the River Thames, exactly as the article says. Don't know where you got the A40 road from. Crazysuit 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The main road Snow Hill police station faces onto is Newgate Street, aka the A40, which doesn't touch the river at any point until Oxfordshire. Yes, Snow Hill runs off Farringdon Street, but the police station is at the other end. — iridescent 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - possibly keep - This is one of only three police stations that form the City of London Police. This station is one of two teritorial divisions of this police force. Certainly more notable than your average london police station. [2]. However, I'm not sure what the notability criteria for police stations are. No more bongos 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Merge seems to be a perfectly good option too. Just trying to illustrate that this wasn't just a completely irrelevant station. No more bongos 22:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into City of London Police. Since the force has only three stations, any noteworthy material about them can be treated at the main article until there's enough detail to necessitate a split; that stage has not been reached here, even if the video game trivia count as noteworthy. I think there's a precedent for this kind of policy in merging low-importance schools into school district articles. EALacey 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This one seems like an obvious merge. how to deal with articles on police stations in general is a slightly more difficult problem because of the number of articles that might need merging in instances such as London--presumably there will often be some intermediate region. DGG (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to create a set of WP:POLICE notability criteria (tongue firmly in cheek) No more bongos 12:26, 13 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widows Peak[edit]

Widows Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC lone_twin 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:N, WP:V, and multiple other issues. Redirect either to Neckbreaker#Gory neckbreaker (female wrestler Victoria's finishing move is called the Widow's Peak and she has used it for several years). TJ Spyke 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirectSpeedy delete, then redirect to Widow's peak or Widows' Peak. Speedy criterion A1, no context. Powers T 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That means there are THREE diffent thing that this could redirect too, maybe someone should make a disambiguation page? TJ Spyke 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to speedy. Powers T 13:05, 14 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 and redirect, as the argument that this is a point of view fork is well-made and has consensus. In this case, due to the nature of the subject and such, what I have done is protect the Al Gore controversies redirect while leaving the history there. Content can be merged back into Al Gore by editorial consensus and "being bold" edits at involved parties' discretion.

However, it's clear this article shouldn't exist by itself, hence the protected redirect. Parties can determine what, if anything, can be merged and how, through discussion at Talk:Al Gore. Daniel 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore controversies[edit]

Al Gore controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating for deletion, as a fork of only negative tone about a WP:BLP subject. Also, controversy articles are bad in practice, violating WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Featured articles such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt do not have associated articles like this. It needs to be pointed out that articles like this turn into dumping grounds for negative material of dubious relevance and none of the material has been "deleted" or will be deleted if this AfD is successful. Any administrator can review and give copies of the data to editors who wish to import relevant, sourced, and on-topic information to Al Gore. As an alternative to outright deletion, I can support redirecting this to the parent article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't compatible with NPOV and BLP, or precedent. • Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Lawrence Cohen on this point - A POV tag should not be a justification for an article to exist - policy, precedent, common sense, anything you like says that if a subject cannot be made to conform to NPOV, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Hence we arrive at the major problem with any "controversies" or "criticism" articles. Even the existence of such an article seems to imply bias, and will always attract negative attention.Tx17777 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then Merge some of the content with the main article. The fact is, while I agree with TX17777's argument about attracting negative attention, articles like these state matters whose omission does by itself constitute a form of POV. To me, the only way to achieve NPOV in a controversial matter is by stating all POV's as long as they are reasonable and notable enough, and doing so without comment. Nothing should be kept under silence. Or, one may add Criticism of Wal-Mart, and several other articles, to this discussion.
So, yes, maybe these controversies do go in the main article. There are currently only two lines in there about them. --Blanchardb 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful content, if any, and delete. Not sure if there is any useful content or not, but this is a blatant POV fork. No more bongos 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If there is any notable content, it can easily be merged into the main Al Gore article.-Hal Raglan 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete: My own personal opinion is that we should be more liberal with wikipedia content, however, I have watched many biography pages being trimmed of criticism and criticism sections citing WP:BLP & WP:Criticism. In light of that activity, this page sticks out. Robneild 23:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's strange that most people think the Giuliani article should be kept but that this one should be deleted. Either they both go, or they're both kept. Deleting or keeping articles because they happen to chime with particular political beliefs is not what Wikipedi should be about. Nick mallory 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice anyone that !voted here doing the opposite number on the Giuliani article. I myself am happy with both going outright or being a redirection, as I stated on each AfD. Where did you see such innapropriate behavior? • Lawrence Cohen 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about individual editors, I was talking about the principle. I am agreeing with you that both should stay or both should go. I would not want to see a situation where, for example, every republican had a 'controversies' article and those of every democrat were removed. That's all I'm saying. 203.108.239.12 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I'm a Gore fan, it's a case of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend you're right to say it". Well-known public figures are entitled to less protection from defamation than the average human being. BLP is in place to avoid libel (which by definition is untrue) about living persons, not to prevent a repetition of published reports that are unfavorable. Were that so, we could not mention that Richard Nixon resigned as a result of being accused of obstruction of justice or of an attempted coverup of the Watergate scandal. In this case, however, I see someone else's well-sourced list of unfavorable information about Al Gore. Like Mallory, I think what's sauce for Rudy is sauce for Al. Mandsford 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming at this from the same angle as you, but come to a different conclusion - which is to incorporate the sourced criticism, including the sources, into the article. WP:POVFORK makes for interesting reading in this discussion. Same should be done for any similar articles, as far as I'm concerned. No more bongos 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a POV fork. Any verifiable content can be merged into the main bio article about Gore. Edison 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure Here's a precedent to consider: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That has a "merge" tag, but mergeing articles does not go through a formal process like AFD. As a practical matter, I'm not in favor of content forking the controversies to a separate article, but if it's difficult to merge the content back in to the main article, I don't want to lose content for no reason. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after dismantling, disbursing, and integrating legitimate contents into other Al Gore-related articles. I'm the editor who's done this for the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani articles, and there are a few misconceptions in the comments above. In this process, legitimate material is not removed from Wikipedia, it's just moved to the correct context, and thereby put into conformance with WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Lengthening already lengthy main articles is always a concern, but material can often be moved to subarticles or main article footnotes instead. In this case, "Fund raising" can be added into the main article; it's a legitimate ethical/legal issue that did damage to his career, and "no controlling legal authority" was a damaging phrase that should be mentioned there. The "created the Internet" material can go into the Al Gore's contributions to the Internet and technology subarticle (a lot of it already is) and referenced from the main article. "Love Canal" probably belongs as a brief reference in the main article, augmented by a main article footnote that tells the story of the whole mix-up (the Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton articles make good use of footnotes this way). "Use of energy in home" I'm not sure about, I'd have to look closer at all the Al Gore articles; it's always possible to create a new article dedicated to a particular controversy, if it is merited (Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy and Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik were created during dismantling this way). "Meat-eating and Climate Change" is really a policy disagreement, not a controversy; it can go into the An Inconvenient Truth article, which it pertains to (actually, I think the same material is already there). Also, a redirect-with-protect is an alternative to delete as a final disposition, as that allows everyone to see what the contents were (and that they were fairly disbursed) without being able to revert the article back into existence. Wasted Time R 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with parent articles, redirect and protect. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - until the content is appropriately merged, then delete. the biggest problem is that outright deletion is no more or less 'pov' than keeping it. editors have attempted to incorporate criticisms from the 'controversies' article, but are routinely overridden and reverted. the article used to have a 'merge' tag, but because nobody seems to be able to successfully merge the content without being battered with reversions, it goes nowhere - then a helpful editor removes the 'merge' tag. so, what do we have when we have a main article that some editors won't allow to be 'sullied' with controversial content? a pov main article. and a bastard child controversies article where the criticism is conveniently ensconced out of the main spotlight. Anastrophe 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Pretty much agree with what Wasted Time R said, except the PETA complaint, which is more of an example of why controversy/criticism sections/articles should be avoided. Controversy/criticism articles turn into crap collectors for every minor criticism for the subject of the article and give undue weight to minor issues (like the PETA complaint) and are content forks for the truly notable issues in that they shunt the negative aspects off the main article and leave only the positive. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A section/article on controversies deserves it place. Deleting it outright as someone else here has already said, is no less POV than retaining it. If retaining it is POV, then so it deleting it, given that the same content is included in both cases Ethereal 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the presentation of the article that is POV, not the actual content. I don't think anyone is saying that the notable content currently in the article should not be retained on Wikipedia, just how that information is presented needs to be changed. Including notable information about a subject, whether it is negative, positive, or neutral, is perfectly acceptable and encouraged. The problem with Criticism/Controversy articles/sections is the same problem that plagues trivia sections/articles in that they are generally a sign of poor editing style and invariably collect every minor issue about the subject and give that minor issue undue weight. There is also a lack of balance with controversy/criticism articles in that the main article generally has all negative information about the subject expunged and shuffled to the controversy/criticism sub-article, which results in a positive biased main article and a negative biased sub-article. Neither of these results are a good thing and the two articles should be merged as much as possible. Granted, in some cases, the section that the negative information would be included in has been calved off into a sub-article of its own, so the negative information that would normally go there would be summarized per WP:SS in the main article and detailed in the sub-article. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bobblehead has it exactly right. We're not deleting content, we're deleting a way of organizing and presenting that content that does not conform to stated WP guidelines. Wasted Time R 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, in simpler terms, the problem with the point of view violations is in the presentation itself. In simple (probably too simple) analogy terms, it would be the equivalent of a notable painter creating two notable works of art. The painter, and the two pieces of art, both merit articles of their own. However, say the two paintings were: 1. Hillary Clinton in bondage gear, emasculating a man; and 2. Rudy Giuliani, dressed as a SS German officer with a little square mustache. Would we include those two very iconic images that would drive the right and left both gleeful and furious at the same time in the articles Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton? NPOV is as much about the information presented as how its presented. Deleting these unneeded controversy pages, that basically amount to "Why this subject sucks" articles, is in full compliance with BLP and NPOV, unless the fact that the subject is heavily, heavily criticized is subject to bulletproof notability. That is probably reserved for someone on the level of a President, however. • Lawrence Cohen 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominater and others. Controversy pages and sections are almost always bad ideas, as they tend to become troll magnets, and dumping grounds for negative material (of dubios relevance) about the subject. Relevant material should be merged into the main article, and preferably not into section called "Controversies" or "Criticisms," and definitely in a manner that doesn't give anything undue weight. Yilloslime (t) 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Politicians attract criticism by merely being politicians - and the actions that politicians take which cause criticism define what politicians stand for and mean. This is impossible to get around. However criticism pages should also have the politician's response to criticism in order to balance out POV concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmegill (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of comment is really non-responsive to what is being proposed. Nobody is saying that articles about political figures should omit criticisms of those figures; the issue is how the material is organized. See Ronald Reagan, for example: it includes Reaganomics/trickle-down/deficit, Bitburg, slow response to AIDS, Iran-Contra, militaristic foreign policy, and other criticisms, but without a "Controveries" or "Criticisms" section or article. Wasted Time R 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a criticisms page to the Ronald Reagan article. The criticisms page is called Reagan_administration_scandals and has reciprocal links to the main article. I repeat again: politicians attract criticism. Criticism/Controversy/Scandal whatever you want to call it provide an organizing structure.Jmegill 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note: The Ronald Reagan article was a featured article. This is contrary to your assertion that featured articles do not have criticism pages. Jmegill 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a steaming pile of crap that article is.. Looks like we found the next target for AFD. Although, technically, the article is about Reagan's administration, not him. The only parts of the article that are notable and not covered in Reagan's Presidential article or a sub-article off that article are the HUD grant rigging and EPA Superfund "scandal". The Savings and Loan and Iran/Contra are covered in the Presidential article and the lobbying scandal doesn't seems to have more to do with former administration officials being stupid and lying to Congress than anything else, so it's given the appropriate amount of coverage in the articles about those people. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of Reagan_administration_scandals, and its really badly done cousin Reagan administration convictions, but yes, I think they are different as they are about an administration, not the life of a given individual. And hey, I'm all for political scandal articles — look who the main writer of Travelgate and Filegate has been — but I like each notable scandal to have its own article, and not be pasted together under some kind of group concept. In particular, the HUD, lobbying, and S&L scandals all have timeless human foibles as causes that are hardly unique to the Reagan administration. Wasted Time R 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after dismantling, dispersing, and integrating as per Wasted Time R. We don't need more PoV forks, we need fewer. His work on the Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rudy Giuliani controversy articles is an example of what we should be doing, instead of hit jobs slapped together without context. Horologium t-c 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete - there is ongoing contention on the Al Gore talk page re criticism there. (one example) It's frequently discussed whether to keep or make a new article. If both options are exercised, it represents bias. Either the criticism goes in the main article (prefereable I think) or the POV forks need to be allowed. Arthur 00:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this sort of POV-fork, I think the most preferable option is to merge the content, where appropriate, into Al Gore - bearing in mind giving the criticisms their proper weight in the article.Pastordavid 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism" here, WP:Criticism#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism. Robneild 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging appropriate content to main or related articles. Rillian 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as POV fork, as with other 'X politician controversies' articles. -- Terraxos (talk) 18:19, 16 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 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotechnology in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nanotechnology in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A trivial unsourced dumping ground for anything related to nanotechnology in fiction. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up. A notable theme in fiction, beefing up the first paragraph and adding some references regarding the general use of nanotechnology in fiction and science fiction would be a good idea – as would cleaning out some of the worst cruft. Artw 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a lot of work, but journal articles like "Teaching Societal and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology to Engineering Students Through Science Fiction" [3] and "Microscopic Doctors and Molecular Black Bags: Science Fiction's Prescription for Nanotechnology and Medicine" [4] show that the article's topic is notable and verifiable. This book has chapters like "Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science" and "Less is More: Much Less is Much More: The Insistent Allure of Nanotechnology Narratives in Science Fiction". I'll add some material to the article before this AfD closes. Bláthnaid 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are almost 2,500 Google Scholar hits for "nanotechnology+fiction". Even if just 1% of these articles relate to this article, that is an abundance of reliable sources. Bláthnaid 19:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nanotechnology, in this case, is "magic". Centuries from now, children might learn about how nanobots were programmed by a kindly old scientist to temporarily transform Cinderella's garments, with default setting to commence at 2359 hours. Mandsford 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient references for the notability of the overall topic, the items are adequately encyclopedic content, they can be sourced from both primary and secondary sources. that really should be the end of the discussion--except for the above comment that one particular user doesnt think its a notable subject, in his personal judgement. And the nom's comment about WP NOT DIR-- I can not see how this is in any sense a directory--to what? That's a novel argument in the rash of deletions on similar subjects, possibly because all other versions of WP NOT have been tried and failed. DGG (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Blathnaid. --Itub 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article that dicusses nanotechnology as a plot device, but not as yet another I spy "x in popular culture" list. There are plenty of sources and notability for this subject. I have boldly removed the IPC list, and I encourage editors to write about this subject in prose, not as a list. --Phirazo 18:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.Biophys 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Blathnaid. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 16 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. Despite the extra week (see W.marsh's comment at the bottom), no new sources were found/added, so the delete argument stands as the strongest and with consensus. Daniel 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fumble after Dark[edit]

Fumble after Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete non notable fan of a certain activity event without independent reliable sources to show its notability. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a fair amount of sources on a google test, but almost all are in Swedish, which I can't read, so I can't judge if they are reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra 21:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FAD is notable at least by local standards - it is the biggest event in Sweden (~ 140-150 particpants in 2007) and has been featured on TV and local newspapers. Also been briefly mentioned in e.g. Icenrye's Geocaching Videozine. Is the article considered OK by wikipedia standards if more sources are added? --Blaufish 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for the community, and things might still change in the article, but if it was sourced by reliable sources, that indicate notability (and it sounds like they do), I would be in favour of keeping the article. Martijn Hoekstra 22:27, 6 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, W.marsh 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting to give more time for sources to be found. --W.marsh 18:34, 12 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. Kurykh 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glow (song)[edit]

Glow (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Crystal ball-gazing article about what it claims is a forthcoming Nelly Furtado single — I could find no sources stating or suggesting that this is the case. The article contains no references (much less reliable ones), so there's nothing to merge into the album article. Extraordinary Machine 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. As it is a song by a major recording artist and is likely to chart, it can be re-created when and if it gets a confirmed release date. Until then, unverifiable speculation is not an article. Tx17777 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-ballism. Acalamari 23:28, 13 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. Kurykh 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Socialism[edit]

Community Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Where to begin? This appears to be a neologism based on use in the article vs what google brings up. 2. COI based on the creator and names mentioned in the article. 3. Facebook? 4. Blogspot?!? If this concept is to be included, this article needs to be rebooted from scratch. As for now, it is better left off of WP spryde | talk 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it stands, this is obvious OR.Biophys 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mindless OR. Biruitorul (talk) 01:26, 18 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 — and redirected. History is preserved for merger. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Park opening sequence[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    South Park opening sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Also nominating the related South Park opening credits‎

    Delete - Yes, South Park is unquestionably notable. That does not make every single aspect of South Park inherently or independently notable. In the absence of reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the opening credits sequences themselves (not passing mentions of them, not descriptions of them in episode guides) they do not pass muster for separate articles. See for example AFDs for the credit sequences for Guiding Light, Another World (opening), Another World (closing) among others. Otto4711 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Unsourced and full of original research. Nothing to prove real-world notability or encyclopaedic worth. Tx17777 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Is there a fan wiki for South Park? Maybe this can go there. Just not here, for the problems of WP:OR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources to establish the notability of the credit sequence. Jay32183 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This just needs to be cleaned up and linked South Park in WP:SUMMARY style; the South Park article is large enough to merit it. Compare this coverage to Family Guy. ;) --- tqbf 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SUMMARY does not justify creating articles that fail WP:N. Topics get articles when they have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on. I don't really care, but, first, it takes two seconds to refute the "NN" argument. Clearly, you'd have WP:N issues if you took a marginally notable topic and divided it into 10 articles. But South Park is hugely notable, and has a long enough article to merit summarization.--- tqbf 21:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the notability of South Park that matters. Your search didn't turn up anything useful. You need to find significant coverage of the opening credits, not a list of things that mention it. Jay32183 21:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not going to win this one. :) From the previous G-news search:
    • The Orlando Sentinel writes about Jesus flying around in the credits
    • The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette performs a close-reading of the credits to discern whether Kenny is truly dead
    • The Wichita Eagle (there are Eagles in Wichita?) writes about the talking poo in the credits
    ... and now I'm bored. I'm just working from the most obvious search, not actually mining for sources.
    I'm not arguing that the article is good. I'm just arguing that it's not inappropriate. The bar for "notable" is pretty low on WP, and the South Park credits clear it by a mile. Deletion isn't a cure for bad articles; editing is. --- tqbf 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the opening credits are mentioned in a source doesn't mean that the source itself establishes the notability of the credits. Simply generating a list of Google news hits that include both the phrase "South Park" and the phrase "opening credits" doesn't demonstrate that the credits are themselves independently notable or indeed that the Ghits themselves are even about South Park's opening credits. Out of the top ten results, for instance, one is a review of "Orgazmo," three are (apparent duplicate) hits about the subject of religious satire in the show, two are about the show "That's My Bush" and one is about Bruce Willis. Your supposed "close reading" by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reads in its entirety "He was written out of the opening credits and replaced by another character, named Butters." and then there's the one-paragraph mention of South Park's spoofing another show's credit sequnce, but not during South Park's own credit sequence. So, again, no sources that establish the notability of the credit sequences in and of themselves through substantive coverage. Otto4711 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into South Park. Captain Infinity 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep merge the two articles together. Per tqbf, this is completely acceptable under WP:SUMMARY. I don't want the South Park mainpage overlaoded with details about the opening sequence. minimise cruft yes, but this article could be cruft-free and standalone.--ZayZayEM 03:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into South Park Doc Strange 07:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it is completely Original Research and there is nothing provided to show any notablity of the topic.TheRedPenOfDoom 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    Where's the WP:OR here? --- tqbf 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fancruft. Jmlk17 23:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This article is being considered for deletion because the two articles weren't merged.206.255.186.75 03:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the articles are being considered for deletion because they do not meet relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and merge the two articles into one. Notability guidelines do not require exclusive coverage of a subject, and just because there are no news stories or books entitled "South Park's Opening Credits" does not mean the subject is not notable. Even one-sentence mentions in reliable sources can contribute to significant coverage if a significant number of unique one-sentence mentions with different perspectives on the subject can be collected into a comprehensive article about the subject. But in addition a large amount of mentions in news stories, a book about the Simpsons (Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture) actually devotes a paragraph to the South Park opening credits. One of Wikipedia's biggests strengths is being able to collect information from a disparate variety of sources into comprehensive coverage of a huge variety of topics. Why does it feel like there are forces trying to misuse policies and guidelines in order to reduce Wikipedia to a clone of Encyclopedia Britannica or Microsoft Encarta? -- DHowell (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one except you is suggesting that sources need to be exclusive. But they do need to be, as the guideline states, "more than trivial." One-sentence mentions are not "more than trivial." One paragraph out of a book is not "more than trivial." If there were sources that were actually significant in their coverage of the opening credits, then they would establish the independent notability of the credits sequence and the one-sentence mentions or the paragraph could be cited for their information. But they do not establish notability. Otto4711 (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think you're challenging common sense. There are probably more than a million people who can recite the first lyric of the theme song from memory, which is part of the opening credits. All these two articles do is summarize content from a large notable article. You are arguing with how the South Park topic is organized on WP by trying to argue with how notable it is.--- tqbf 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are probably ten million people or more who can name for instance every person who ever appeared on Survivor. That doesn't mean that every Survivor contestant should have his or her own separate page. "Lots of people know what it is" is not the name thing as notability, which requires reliable sources that offer significant coverage. Otto4711 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're confusing notability with verifiability, for what it's worth. --- tqbf 03:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, actually I'm not.Actually I'm quoting directly from WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The funny thing is, many (most?) of the Survivor competitors have WP pages. --- tqbf 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't necessarily mean that they should. The existence, or lack thereof, of any other article shouldn't impact this discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many do, many don't. Those who do have reliable sources attesting to their notability, and if they don't then the pages should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion of those articles isn't really relevant. The issue at hand isn't the subject's notability, I think it is generally agreed that this article's subject is notable. The problem, however, is proving there is significant coverage and sources to meet WP:N and be verifiable per WP:V. In its current iteration, it does neither. As such, arguing the article meets assumed notability really doesn't matter. The burden of proof on this article is on finding sources. I attempted to do so, but couldn't find any. Until such sources are found, policy dictates that we delete. SorryGuy 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say Merge. It is somewhat of a hallmark for the show, so outright deletion is bad. However, shorten it up and add it to the main South Park article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2007
    • Delete. Per my justification above, if significant sources are not found I support deletion. SorryGuy 21:39, 18 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. Kurykh 03:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrlamb[edit]

    Irrlamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Independent coverage seems to be limited to blogs and download sites; not enough to establish notability. Prod from last month removed with the rationale: "Game is significant due to being one of the few notable maintained examples of irrlicht in action. But needs better summary and min. reqs." Marasmusine 18:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No sources and scarcely any assertion of notability, fails WP:N, notability is not inherited. Someone another 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete at best, and judging by the prod-remover's rationale, anything relevant from this should be merged to Irrlicht Engine, though according to that page there are quite a few projects using the engine, so that argument seems void. Miremare 20:19, 13 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. Kurykh 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clinical Transaction Repository[edit]

    Clinical Transaction Repository (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Outside of wikipedia, the term "Clinical Transaction Repository" does not exist. This article appears to be original research spryde | talk 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nominator's reaoning. Maybe it's just me, but reading the article gives me no clue as to what it is about, and the article may qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A3. PCock 18:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete only ghits are Wikipedia and mirrors. [5] Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 17 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 to Jenkem. Speedy close because deletion was not requested. —dgiestc 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007 Jenkem moral panic[edit]

    2007 Jenkem moral panic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This article was split from the main jenkem article with little meaningful discussion. I see no reason why we should have separate articles for jenkem and the moral panic (which Wikipedia, in part, seems to have instigated) surrounding it. Many other drugs (real drugs, mind you) have caused significant moral panics, and we have no articles devoted to them - the societal issues are discussed, almost without exception, in the main article. This has also had the effect of decentralizing discussion on the topic, which is bad, since we really need a few more eyes on this issue. I propose that this article be deleted and its contents be merged back into jenkem. Skinwalker 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note added after 3 comments were made: The moral panic material is terribly sourced, as many of the sources use the original jenkem article on wikipedia as a source themselves. This sort of irresponsible sourcing is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia look bad. I've also asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. I concur with Spryde and others that the vast majority of this material is unsuitable for inclusion in either article. Skinwalker 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge into jenkem as little as possible and only from reliable sources. This appears to be an unencyclopedic attempt to document the spread of the meme, step by step. Unless credible secondary sources discuss these various steps they are not really encyclopedic, and have the air of advertising certain blogs or forums. --Dhartung | Talk 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was one of two people who split the article. My reasoning was to get the original article back on track of actually discussing Jenkem instead of the hoax. This article is designed to go for the hoax. If this gets merged back in, I sincerely hope that a passing reference is made versus a full on cut and paste back in. I don't care if this article lives or dies. spryde | talk 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Spryde - appropriate weight of this in the main article (i.e., a short paragraph). delete the remainder. --Rocksanddirt 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for an AfD if you wish only to merge it. <eleland/talkedits> 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm confused, is the 'hoax' bit just about whether or not children are using it in America? Only it is really used in Africa I think- there's an article on it by the BBC, you can't get more RS than that. As to the TOTSE boy, I think he really did it, he just changed his story about it due to bullying or people being repulsed. But anyone feel free to message me with these mainly off-topic of the AfD disussion issues. As to this article-- obvious delete/merge content back into Jenkem.Merkinsmum 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back to the jenkem article. The lede of this article would be an ideal fit there, but the rest of it is just Proseline. Powers T 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    leave it as aits own article, it will grow bigger before it goes away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.134.55 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — 75.191.134.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

    The result was delete. Kurykh 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond race magazine[edit]

    Beyond race magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable magazine, no independent sourcing Mayalld 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Magazine is not notable, and there are no independent sources to prove its notability. Furthermore, the original author persists in removing the AfD notice from the article. Apparently an attempt at promoting his own business. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Unsure if I need to say so as the nominator Mayalld 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no notability, no references, appears to be self promotion. IrishLass 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the article also contains a copyrighted image used without permission. Image:Cover_donnell_web2.jpg which should be immediately removed. IrishLass 20:34, 15 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.

    Non-admin close. Article was already deleted by W.marsh in previous AfD. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Benetin[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Benetin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Maps linked to in article are not of this place. First several pages of non-wiki ghits (in both English and French) do not refer in any way to a kingdom or island with this name. Hoax? Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ooops! My bad. The article wasn't showing the AfD notice, and I couldn't find where it had been removed, so I AfD'd it again. This second nomination is an error and should be deleted. Sorry! (I've fixed the article page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 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. Kurykh 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Studio 60 (Studio 60 Location)[edit]

    Studio 60 (Studio 60 Location) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article fails WP:Notability (fiction) and is a minor aspect of the series. Much of the article (if not all) is based on the single reference. There's a lot of OR and a lot of plot summary here. Brad 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons -- minor fictional aspects of the series:[reply]

    News 60 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tunney Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    National Broadcasting System (Studio 60) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete or merge anything notable that is not original research into the main article. This just seems like way too much trivia. PCock 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all - non-notable aspects of a cancelled series, will likely never have the sourcing required to make for an encyclopedic article. I see no need to merge the material as it would overwhelm the article for the actual real-world show, for instance, a list of non-existent canceled TV shows adds no value to that article. Otto4711 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as much as I loved the show, it only had one season. This could easily be part of the show's article but does not stand alone. IrishLass 20:36, 15 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. Kurykh 03:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Suno (card game)[edit]

    Suno (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not for games made up in school one day to play with friends during lunchtime. Deli nk 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:MADEUP. —dustmite 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suno is a real card game and should not be deleted from wikipedia. The author of the article is using wikipedia to spread the popularity of the card game. Suno has since become a popular game with more than 500 students playing regularly. Anyone atempting to delete this article is therefore disrespectful to Sam Butler, the creator of the game, Peter McLeod, the author of this article and the 500 students playing Suno. This article is not harming anyone and deleting the article will breach the freedom of speech that the internet, and primarily wikipedia, has worked to create over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.109.229 (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    — 86.156.109.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

    The result was Redirect to World government in science fiction. There is little information that can be saved for a merge, and I will userify on request if it is needed for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    President of Earth[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    President of Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. This article was previously deleted through AfD (its second nomination) with the provision that it could be re-created with "focus and sources." This attempt does cite sources, but it is still no more than a very-loosely-related collection of a handful of sources that mention this fictional concept. This concept is still not notable, and merely citing these few sources still does not make it so. Let's please delete this article for good, once and for all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD Clean up I cleaned up this AFD nomination Diff as the original poster overwrote the 2nd Nomination Diff when they should have been posting a 3rd. I am the creator of the current article history. Jeepday (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Despite what Twinkle has tagged, this appears to be the article's third AfD. If an admin could fix this and restore the real 2nd AfD, I would appreciate it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The first save of this stub article with 3 references was barely 5 minutes old when it was posted with a WP:PROD Diff. In about 30 minutes it had grown to a larger stub with 5 references and was then summited for WP:AFD. There are now references and wikilinks to articles supporting the notability of this article, there is no deadline but this stub article clearly meets the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (creator of the current article)[reply]
    • Comment: Agreed with Otto4711. Despite the enhanced sources, it's still a loosely-associated list. I could live with a redirect, but the subject itself just doesn't cut it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to World government in science fiction. This is just a list of fictional characters who happen to have held positions with the same title. That doesn't make them distinctive enough to be treated separately from other fictional global rulers – at least, the article cites no sources to indicate that "Presidents of Earth" are a subject of study in their own right. EALacey 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Per Lacey, with merger of the useful information. Mandsford 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Lacey, and merge verifiable and useful info. Edison 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • redirect to and mention in World government in science fiction. Xaver David 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. I'm comfortable with the redirect suggested above as I don't think the article meets coverage and verifiability arguments of WP:N. SorryGuy 21:46, 18 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. Kurykh 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagine Learning English[edit]

    Imagine Learning English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Originally nominated as blatant advertising for speedy deletion. I declined, but certainly appears to be a non-notable product and ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I couldn't find any sources that meet WP:V. It brings up some Google hits, but most of it appears to be advertising. Jauerback 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I originally tagged it for CSD as blatant advertising. Under WP:PRODUCT, which states that articles about products and services are only necessary either when the product itself is of note or the inclusion of the products in the article about the parent company would make the parent article unwieldy. As there is no article about the parent company to fold the content into and a Google search fails to indicate any real notability of the product, this article does not belong on Wikipedia. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 01:57, 13 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 per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sandstein (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Everitt Road saga[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Everitt Road saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Nominating this for deletion again, on essentially the same premise as the first nomination: It is still a "Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia."

    Although there are about 50 results in Factiva for this incident (I have a PDF of all the results available by e-mail if anyone wants it), it remains a strictly local (Singapore-only) phenomenon, and an unremarkable one at that. It died down after the last court hearing a year ago and no articles - even in the Singapore press - have mentioned it since then. To quote User:Lar from the first nomination, this tiff has had zero influence on public policy and has not changed the lives of any otherwise notable persons. It is nothing like the Hatfield-McCoy feud because it has made little impact on the outside world.

    In summary, the Chan family's antics may have generated "widespread" media coverage back 3-4 years ago, but no one remembers them now and WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - WP:NOT#NEWS states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and I think that bar is cleared here. Singapore's government actually has an article on this feud here, and if this much information is available in English, I can only speculate at how much press this has generated in Malay, Tamil, or Mandarin. I'm also unconvinced that anyone in Singapore would consider the Hatfield-McCoy feud more notable than we Westerners consider the Everitt Road saga. --Hyperbole 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remain unconvinced. [6] goes to a website not by the govt, but a encyclopedia run by the local National Library. Their cited sources are just a re-hash of the same newspaper articles. Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The National Library Board of Singapore is a government agency. I would tend to believe that if this "saga" is notable enough for the Singaporean government to preserve online, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 07:49, 6 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, W.marsh 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure whether I think this is notable or not, but it certainly isn't notable under the name "Everitt Road saga". [7] [8] This name seems problematic. - Revolving Bugbear 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I realize that this incident made the news in Singapore, but that is fundamentally local coverage: Singapore is a country but it is also a single city, and this is a mere local news story. It has been covered in the news there but not widely or in depth. Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 19 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 close with no action (default keep). It is impossible to decipher a coherent result from this debate. No prejudice towards renomination or improvement of article. Kurykh 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher James Mitchell[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Christopher James Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This man is a fraud - please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2320347.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2590323.stm

      Exactly 5 years after being banned from Directorship, he founded this company, and has conned various people into believing him. This page is part of the con, and should therefore be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) — DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


      • Comment Is that the same person? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This is a different Christopher Mitchell - the entry on IMDB is obviously not a fraud. Is THIS Christopher Mitchell notable? I suggest not, therefore Delete. Mr pand 18:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes it is the same. I have information, and the IMDB is wrong. He has been hiding at the MPC in London for a while now, and was recently found out and thrown out. This is totally wrong to have this page still here. The police are involved in his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.182.57 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      — 86.156.182.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

      • Comment. The BBC articles given here don't mention his filmography. Clearly they have the same nationality, age and name, but...this just seems a bit odd to me. The BBC articles also never mention that the alleged filmography is a scam (by virtue of not mentioning them at all, obviously), so we can't conclude that, although we also don't truly have a reliable source to say he's actually producing anything. So to sum up, we have Chris Mitchell, 28, British con-man; and Chris Mitchell, 28, British movie producer. The former is probably notable (but could be left out of Wikipedia on account of WP:BLP1E), which could be confirmed by a source outside the BBC. The latter is probably notable if what's mentioned on IMDB is true, but we have no reliable sources given to support that. And we have no source given that actually confirms these are the same person. Someguy1221 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that Christopher James Mitchell did not take time out between finishing Jurassic Park III and starting The Phantom Of The Opera to run a pathetic charity scam; it's also very unusual for court reports not to include the defendant's full name. Hence, unless evidence shows up that both are the same person, I suggest that we keep this article as-is, and ignore the BBC sources. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Either the nominator is very confused or this is in extreme bad faith. The source given simply does not match up with the information; obviously there is -- shocking, I know -- more than one person with the name "Christopher Mitchell". The ages are wrong, and the BBC guy is a "director" of a company, while our article is about a "director" of moving pictures (and I'm really not sure what would cause someone to be barred from that). I'm not satisfied of the notability of our article subject, all that said. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Tagged nominator as SPA: contribs is otherwise empty. No comment on bad faith per se. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      — 217.44.171.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

      • Comment Someone please deal with this IP for making legal threats. Edward321 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You will find that he is also the 'Director' of the Relevant Picture Company. This is a management role, and if you use the business search engine DnB (which is used by all major firms), the same Christopher James Mitchell is noted under both companies as Principal Director of the board. It is the same person, and these reports are to be believed, as they are undertaken by one of the most important and well trusted anti-money laundering organisations in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.171.159 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC) {(spa|217.44.171.159}}[reply]
      • Comment In any case it doesn't seem as though the article should be deleted. It has as many as two subjects, both with claims to notability. Bobby1011 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep Reasons given by Detective Stan and the Meatpuppets, if they are correct, indicate addtional notability for this marginally notable person. Edward321 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DELETE He is obviously a fraud. I have been duped by him. It is alleged that he is a groomer of young people. Please do not make yourselves his accomplices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.54.253 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2007
        • Comment do not make allegations like that without citing reliable sources. It is also true that on DnB, Children's Celebrations Ltd and Relevant Picture Company Ltd both have the same registered address.This is a confusing case...is the charity fraud mentioned in other newspapers and the like? I'll look into it... Mr_pand 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisting to get a clearer idea of what to do here. It's not clear if there are enough sources about the guy listed by IMDB, or whether we should have an article about the guy in the BBC links or if they are the same person. I point out that we shouldn't delete an article just because we dislike someone... in this case because we think they're a fraudster. Fraudsters can be notable. --W.marsh 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I think it should be closed as a default keep. The reasons given by the nom for deleting actually lend even more notability, and Wikipedia is not censored, so...there you go. Further, we have no sources to say his sources are about the same guy. And finally, if someone wants to AFD the Chris Mitchell we actually have an article on, they can go ahead and start a new one without these silly fraud claims. Someguy1221 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Corvus cornix's comment below more or less... the sourcing is still not very good. I didn't feel comfortable closing the AFD yet, considering this is a WP:BLP. --W.marsh 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Well, it certainly needs sources, as imdb is not reliable. And the paragraph about the production company sounds as if the production company is notable, but it should have its own article and not be part of this guy's biography. Corvus cornix 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have looked into this and all I can say is that he was an official trustee at St Paul's Cathedral without any reported problems, he did investigate corruption and fraud at the film studios, and yes he did have a production office there. The original poster states that he has set up a new company, well there is no offence (either criminal or civil) the man (whichever) has paid his debt to society, I also found from the official recorders at the Royal Courts of Justice that the defendant's sentence was quashed and later the conviction overturned. So neither Mitchell has done anything wrong.

      As for "grooming young men" well if he is gay (again staying impartial) that is not a criminal nor civil offence. and I presume by men, we are talking about male's over the age of 16. In which case it is called dating! not grooming! I think that this AFD section should be deleted as it carries statements by the original poster which in their own right are litigious, defamatory and without any confirmed sources whatsoever. This article also breaks Wikipedia's own ethics (to a living person: we should do no harm) Wikipedia is a encylopedia NOT a tabloid. I agree with other posters who feel that the original poster is doing this in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.6.54 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) — 87.75.6.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Kaytha Coker[edit]

      Kaytha Coker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. The roles listed here all appear to be minor ones. Stub since April 2006 Ohconfucius 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep: Would like to see the article expanded a bit, but I don't see a reason to delete. - Rjd0060 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 16:03, 7 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 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep - the article needs expansion, so currently is lacking an assertion of notability. Hopefully after the closure of the AFD, a user should elaborate on the notability through expansion, and using reliable sourcing. Rudget zŋ 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The length of the filmography indicates a sufficient degree of notability in my opinion. PCock 18:22, 12 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. Kurykh 03:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Avatar Blue[edit]

      Avatar Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      I came upon this article tagged for CSD and spent some time trying to clean it up. Unsourced since August, it does assert notability, though it does not verify its assertions, and it raises several red flags with regards to notability and accuracy. Specific concerns are these:

      • "Best Unsigned Bands"—accuracy concerns—I can't find any indication that this band placed. Receiving a "nomination" is a vague claim of notability, given that this was a contest featuring 3,000 bands. (See for instance, in reference to 1992)
      • More accuracy—I can't find any evidence that The Boston Music Awards even has a "Best Funk Act". google search only comes up with this article & a CD Baby bio on a band mentioned in this article. Even if it does, I see no verification of a win or a major placement.
      • Accuracy—The only reference to "Best HipHop/Rap Act" and WFNX is this article. A general search combining the station call letters & the band name is likewise not helpful.
      • There seems to at least be no notability for the track "Hip-Hop 2 The Top", which gets 2 hits, Wikipedia-referential.
      • There seems to be no notability for the eponymous CD. A search for the album & label results in very few hits—no reliable sources.
      • There's no substantiation of radio play for the song "Tell Me Why" or indication of notability through a google search.
      • I can't find any evidence of the referenced songwriter award. (See here). Musician Deanna Dellacioppa's myspace does not mention it or any involvement with the band. While Deanna Dellacioppa gets 10 entries at Billboard, there's no reference to the award or the song.
      • AMG has no entry on the band. Credits for Chris Phoenix do not mention the band or the allegedly award-winning song. Credits for Deanna Della Cioppa do not mention the band or the song.

      I believe that unless reliable sources can be produced to verify the notability of the band, the article should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete per nom. Apparently NN. This poorly written unsourced drivel doesnt rate a page on Wikipedia. Decoratrix 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Nominator has worked harder than they deserve to search for any reliable sources: looks as if there aren't any. JohnCD 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom and JohnCD. Nominator did a great job of trying to improve the article. Jauerback 16:21, 12 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 under WP:CSD#G12. GRBerry (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      MorningStar Fellowship Church[edit]

      MorningStar Fellowship Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This organization gets about 220,000 ghits ([9]), but given the way the article is written, it would probably be better to start from scratch. Too many COI problems. --Blanchardb 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - COI and advertisement. Wait till somebody outside the organisation wants to write a NPOV piece about it. JohnCD 16:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete - although I agree with all the above, there isn't much to the article, and I bet a little bit of time by anyone interested in this topic could easily create a stub that would be worth keeping. Jauerback 16:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12, blantant copyright violation from [10]. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:05, 13 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 the 2006 and 2007 lists; keep the other one. Mangojuicetalk 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Lists of Time 100[edit]

      Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
      Time 100 (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
      Time 100 (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      These are three articles that simply list TIME's top 100 influential people from 1999, 2006, and 2007. They should be deleted because they are:

      • Not encyclopedic. They are just the lists, whereas they should be articles about the lists. There is no interpretive content, no analysis, no outside opinions on which rankings were reasonable and which were not, no assessment of the list's influence. In short, no encyclopedic content.
      • Not notable. Each year's list should not receive its own article. There is no evidence that the list was seen as important or even reported upon by anyone other than TIME.
      • Redundant. Time 100 documents the list as an annual phenomenon, and actually does report on encyclopedic topics related to it. The individual lists are not necessary.
      • Possibly a copyright violation. It's a pretty unclear area, but this is not a factual list (like, say, List of people from Ohio); it's the exact reproduction of someone else's creative/interpretive work, namely, TIME's assessment of who is influential and who is not. Kane5187 15:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      CHANGING: Corvus cornix (below) is right -- I can't withdraw the first nomination. But I'm changing my recommendation (as nominator) to delete the last two and keep the first, but delete the copyrighted list within it. Kane5187 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • Exactly. Delete all as copyvios of Time's intellectual property. Corvus cornix 22:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It's not a copyright violation unless the publisher designates it as copyrighted material. Magazines publish these types of things in the very hope that they will get repeated, draw attention, and possibly sell some subscriptions. People magazine's "sexiest people" lists are a perfect example. You'll see, on occasion, a copyright on a newspaper's investigative report, but most material is designed to be repeated, so long as credit is given for where it came from. I'm not sure that it's fair to lump TIME's list of "most influential people of the 20th Century" with the TIME 100 for 2007, so I'd vote to Keep the first article, and to Delete the second and third article. Mandsford 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not copyvio It has been thoroughly established that at least in the US reporting on this material is not a copyright violation. DGG (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Established by whom? And where? I was under the impression that anything published by anybody is automatically protected by copyright. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It most definitely is a copyvio. This is not a neutral, stats-type of list, this is the opinion of TIME's editorial staff. There have been tons of such articles deleted as copyvios in the past. We can have articles about the list, but we cannot have articles which reproduce the list. Corvus cornix 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • strong keep Time magazine has been called the most famous magazine in the world, and so the listing of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century by historians in such a prestigous publcation is extremely notable, encyclopedic, and of great general interest, and educational value. Of all the gazillions of lists on wikipedia, this is the last one that should be deleted. Slackergeneration 12:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're making a logical leap here that TIME is notable, so something TIME does must be notable. Regarding the list being "prestigious," "notable," "encyclopedic," and "of great general interest," I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination if you can show me reliable sources that confirm these assertions. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • speedy keep You could make an argument for deleting Time's list of the 100 most influential people of 2007, but deleting their list of the 100 most influential people of the entire 20th century is absurd. And the list is extremely notable. Indeed both Al Gore and George W. Bush publicly commented on who Time's person of the century should be Iseebias 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (1) Do you have a citation that they made such statements? (2) Would that amount to more than trivial coverage? I'm not asking for much. If this list is notable, then people must have substantially reported on it in reliable sources unaffiliated with TIME. Show me them and I'll withdraw the nomination, at least for the Century one.
          • It's now been proven below that the list got substantial reporting by sources like CNN, the Associated Press, American Scientist, and New York Daily News, and was even blasted by figures as prominent as Rudy Giuliani. And yes, it's also true that the list was important enough that both Al Gore and George W. Bush submitted their nominations for person of the century to Time magazine[11] Slackergeneration 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Important comment I just added a cited criticism section of criticisms relating specifically to the 20th century list in order to make the list more than just a list of names. In light of this improvement, I think the nomination should be reconsidered. Slackergeneration 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source you cited is a transcript of questions posed to TIME from online viewers, and published by TIME itself. Surely if this list is notable, someone other than TIME has published criticism of it in a reliable source. Kane5187 14:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there's any question this list is extremely notable. It was one of the most popular installments in the history of the world's most respected publication. But if you need evidence that sources other than Time reported on this list, then here's a sample :[12][[13][14][15][16]. If you would like to see criticism that was published in sources other than Time, I will add that to the article too. The criticism by Rudy Giuliani (a presidential contender) is especially notable Slackergeneration 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks! That's exactly what I wanted to see -- integrate those in the article. While I agree (now) that the list merits inclusion, you can't just assume that everyone recognizes the subject as notable a priori. Every article's notability should be backed up by reliable, third-party sources. I'll withdraw my nomination of the century article, although I'm still a bit leery about the copyright issues involved in reproducing the list. Kane5187 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      NOTE: I have removed the withdrawal of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century because, just like all of the other lists, this is a copyvio. And the nominator cannot withdraw a nomination with delete !votes just because they're the nominator. Corvus cornix 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete' both the 2006 and 2007 Time 100 List as copyvio, keep the other one, but remove the list withen, those kind of lists are copyrighted, the only once that are kept is the AFI onces, in which they released to the Public Domain This is a Secret account 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • copyvio question Now, I may well be totally confused, but it was my understanding of US copyright that while the list itself as published in the magazine is copyright, the information that someone is on it is information, not expression and is not subject to copyright. If the detailed text in the WP article as well as the names was reproduced from the magazine, yes, that would be a copyvio. If the names were found on the list, and the info. from WP, etc., used to identify them, it's not. I thought that we can publish about any list we please, and say who is on it--that is not the same as publishing the list. As this is apparently objected to here, I've listed this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.DGG (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I understand you correctly, I think I agree with you -- commentary on the list, which naturally includes revealing some of the people on it, would not be a violation. However, reproduction of only the list would be a violation. These three articles do only the latter; they just reproduce it, without any commentary on it. Kane5187 —Preceding comment was added at 04:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I assume you mean these two articles do only the latter, since the 20th century article now includes plenty of commentary. Anyway it would be very easy to delete the complete list of names section from the 20th century article and then remove it from the nomiation on the grounds that it's no longer an alleged copy-vivo. For an example on how this issue has been solved in the past, check out the 100-an article about a book which attempts to rank the 100 most influential people of all time. For copy-vivo concerns, they decided to list only the top 15. Slackergeneration 11:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I took the liberty of removing the complete list of names from the 20th century list, and now the article only shows the select few from the list who Time singled out for additional recognition (i.e. Einstein who was named person of the century). So the alleged copy-vivo issue has been solved for the 20th century article Slackergeneration 11:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, just to let you all know, all the Oricon charts have been deleted earlier this year due copyvio: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums 2005. The best rationale was "selection and order of list is a copyrightable creative work". -- ReyBrujo 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Based on the changes that were made, I withdraw my objections to Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. Corvus cornix 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment - can someone please add a link to TIME's list of the 20th C top 100? Since the list has been removed, people now have nowhere to go to see the full list. Carcharoth (talk) 14:36, 19 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. W.marsh 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Buckeye local north middle school[edit]

      Buckeye local north middle school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      No notability asserted. No notable items found during customary search spryde | talk 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak Delete - I don't like to see school articles deleted, but it doesn't currently assert any notabilty. Rudget zŋ 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - Neither do I but our current process is "High School always, others by notability". This I can't find anything to make it notable. I would hope the policy becomes "High school always, others by notability, non-notables get directed to the school district" which this one should. spryde | talk 17:52, 12 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 A7, no assertion of notability -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Onur Decani[edit]

      Onur Decani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Onurdecani (talk · contribs) seems very keen to get this page to Wikipedia; now, after 3rd attempt, it barely passes CSD A7. After some investigation of mine, there is a Dj. Onur, http://www.djonur.biz/, but his name is Onur Ergin, and has a decent number of GHits. However, that one, borderline notable, seems to be a German Turk and not the same person as Onur Decani, who has grand total of 0 GHits. Looks like a case of WP:NFT. Unless I missed something, this one looks like a candidate for salting. Duja► 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy delete Vanity article. Notability not asserted. Decoratrix 16:03, 12 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 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      List of Pop 100 chart achievements and trivia[edit]

      List of Pop 100 chart achievements and trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Not sure if it should be improved or deleted. List of (U.S.) Billboard country chart chart achievements provides precedent. Brought here for more discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 15:09, 12 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. DS 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Quasiland[edit]

      Hoax. The one source given explicitly describes it as made up for a simulated exercise on a training course. Even if rewritten to be a factual article, it's not notable enough. ~Matticus TC 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - as hoax. The "directions" make that apparent. Rudget zŋ 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - non-notable fictional location. PCock 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Not humorous enough to be a good hoax. Quasiland is in Idaho. Guess what part of Kansas is Flatland? Har de har har.
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Topographical improvising[edit]

      Topographical improvising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This is a term invented by Andrew Grathwohl (see [[17]]). Of the 40 unique Google hits for this term, most are either from Grathwohl's own site, spamming said site in forums, from Wikipedia and mirrors, or are unrelated. This is fundamentally unverifiable and orignal research, there are no reliable analytical sources in respect of this concept, that I can find. Not in Grove, not in Google Scholar, not on Factiva, I don't have Lexis-Nexis but if you do please see if it's on there. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - no real sources (two links to same page, by Mr. Grathwohl), google turns up little, adding a -bush reduces google hits to 95, and a bucket of wikipedia mirrors. WLU 15:07, 12 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. W.marsh 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Black Knight[edit]

      Black Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Fictitious topic presented as fact. The phenomenon described never existed outside of fiction; regulatory heraldic bodies are a post-medieval development; possession of heraldic devices stemmed from inheritance or from individual assumption of arms, and had nothing to do with presence or absence of a "liege". The text is unsourced -- perhaps cribbed from an RPG handbook? RandomCritic 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep if and only if restricted to a discussion of the character type, assuming that sources can be found to substantiate an encyclopedic article and not just a list of fictional works in which a "black knight" appears. Otherwise delete and redirect to Black Knight (disambiguation). Otto4711 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep It probably could be sourced easily, since a "black knight" is a type of character. I can't help but wonder if Random is right about this particular information coming from a role-playing game. Mandsford 01:53, 13 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 Hairstyle to preserve the GFDL in light of the merge.--Kubigula (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Short back and sides[edit]

      Short back and sides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Has had multiple prods, fails WP:NOT#DICT, it difficult to imagine how this long time unreferenced stub will ever become an encyclopedic article. Nominator suggesting transwiki to Wiktionary and delete Jeepday (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Per WP:BOLD, I have already merged the article, such as it is. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete now that it's merged Mandsford 01:53, 13 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. Kurykh 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Crystalien Conflict[edit]

      Crystalien Conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod.

      Also including Vechile matches for deletion.
      Both of these articles amount to nothing more than game guides. As to the game, it returns 66 unique GHits. These consist of plenty of blogs and forum, but nothing like a reliable source Nuttah68 14:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete both per WP:NOT#GUIDE. JohnCD 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom & JohnCD. Non-notable game cruft. Non-notable (fails, WP:N). Were are the reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) on the topic of "Crystalien Conflict" and "Vechile matches"? Where is the encyclopedic content, the discussion of the "meaning" of these topics? These are not encyclopedia articles, they are nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO). Pete.Hurd 20:50, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Jackass UK[edit]

      Jackass UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      At present, the article asserts notability by claiming great popularity and a television deal. However, there are no reliable sources to verify any notability. The television deal alone would not, in my judgment, be sufficient to keep. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy Delete The fact that the page is created by user Jackass UK says it all. Why wasn't this tagged for speedy deletion per CSD G11? Tx17777 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment Just because he wrote it doesn't make it a speedy. And it does assert notability. Poor sources, which this one has, is also not grounds for speedy. A prod likely would just be removed so I brought it here. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete - I concur with above's user comment. The only sources provided are YouTube and MySpace, hardly what you'd call reliable or indepdendent. Rudget zŋ 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy: No proper references, most likely COI. Andante1980 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete There doesn't seem to be a speedy suitable for this otherwise I concur. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:V. --Malcolmxl5 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Overtime I will update this page as much as possible with information about the team that is needed to be there, theres alot I have still not put on the wiki due to time really, as you are all saying, it is and I myself think it should be up for Speedy Delete or just Delete, Ive seen so many wiki pages here that literally walk all over ours but rest assured I can only contribute to the wiki pages, wether or not you decide to delete the page is of course up to the members, admin etc here.

      Take care everybody Danni W - Jackass UK Wikipedia Page Writer/Coder etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackassUK (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 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. The term is a neologism in limited use in some circles, but Wikipedia is not a directory for new coinages. A number of sources have been added to the article during the discussion, but none of of the accessible ones do more than mention the term in passing (thus, at most, attesting use of the term), and some do go on at some length about the New-York-London pairing, but do not even mention the term at all. No prejudice against creating a redirect to Nylon (magazine), which might be reasonable given the concepts align.

      Despite the great deal of incivil and single purpose account comments in the discussion, no argument rooted in policy or guideline has been put forth to suggest why the article should be kept. — Coren (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      NyLon[edit]

      NyLon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. NawlinWiki 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Really? Is this article really vermin to you or something? Can't you really notice NyLon's extenive use in the media?


      You are not really right Nawlin... See also [18]. I didn't make up this term. There is such a thing as a "NyLon commuter" to give you just one example. BTW I live in London so I know this term is widespread. Don't rush and delete this article just because. Can't you see it is used in the prestigious FT ? If they gave it a greenlight why erase it? The term already exists, we cannot do anything about it! BTW And there are plenty more refferences in the media ready to be added . Apostolos Margaritis 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      You've got NO RIGHT to decide arbitrarily what to delete or not just because it happens that you dislike an article. And it is not used ONLY in ONE FT article. Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. There is The Observer too. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist.Apostolos Margaritis 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • NyLon exists and it is acknowledged as such even by German language sources

      [19] London wiederum ist eng verbunden mit New York, sodaß manche schon von NyLon (New York-London) sprechen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Dude, chill...why the militant response? First of all, the nominator is not just "deciding on his own" to delete this article - the entire point of bringing it to AfD is so people can have a reasoned, structured debate about whether or not to delete it. And you're more than welcome to "mobilise wiki users", so long as you understand that this is not a vote and that they'll have to either prove the term is notable or work to improve the article....oh, and I'd suggest you don't use german on English wiki talk pages or add titles into AfD debates - it's bad form and doesn't help your case. Tx17777 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - it's a neologism and one that I doubt will stick. Also, the first reference link provided is to a "NYLON Magazine" - is this disguised spam? JohnCD 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Barely-sourced neologism. The first source, as JohnCD mentions, is for Nylon Magazine and has nothing to do with this term. It is merely referring to a common lifestyle of the two cities. The other source does not provide much to substantiate the often grandiose claims in this article, such as: "The term is often used by newspaper commentators on the both sides of the Atlantic, and has more recently gained acceptance as such." If it's "often" used by newspaper commentators, where are the sources? Maybe this term will take off some day, but I need to mention WP:CRYSTAL here. As it stands, this is mainly original research and speculative. Get some more sources, real ones, and maybe this article could stand. freshacconcispeaktome 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not delete

      There are reputable, respectable sources making the case for NyLon but you've got no eyes for them and seem to refuse the evidence . "World capital? Nylon, of course " in "The Observer" Sunday, March 25, 2007 So we'got the Financial Times, we've got The Observer what else on earth do you want more than that? Apostolos Margaritis 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Oops, there we go. We'got now The Independent's Gilbert Gerard endorsing the term too.[reply]

      • Delete Half-speculative trivia, which, if kept at all, can easily be some footnote in one of the articles we have on this subject. As a side note, I strongly object to editors not taking the time to include new articles in relevant categories or linking them on other pages (though, in this case, it may not have been worth that trouble). Dahn 19:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Does the use of the phrase as the title of a TV show move it out of the ambit of WP:NEO? I'm undecided. Otto4711 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment For me, Ny-Lon the TV show, NYLON the magazine and "NyLon" the word/term, although they may employ the same abbreviation (which I assume they do), are not necessarily part of a larger popular culture use of a collective term, understood and used by a larger group. A similar example may be SoHo, South of Houston in the NY sense, which is collectively understood to mean one thing, one specific place. If different groups, individuals and media outlets independently coin a term or abbreviation – even if it means the same thing – does that mean it is now part of the larger language or collective conscience? At some point, yes, "NyLon" may be used within regular English, enough to warrant an article. I'm not convinced it is yet. I see a series of coincidences. If this was a cultural phenomena of some sort, surely there would be more sources available? Yes, two more have been added, but isn't this just grasping at straws? Three writers have coined a term. They didn't employ an already existing word. freshacconcispeaktome 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Freshacconci shows true common sense above and I cannot say I entirely disagree with him. As to all the other wiki-flunkies [i.e. the likes of Dahn (a native Romanian speaker he claims !? Well, I ought to be one of them too should I not? Hmmmm) & the ones he's unctuously aping] all what I can tell you is: no probs, go on! wipe off the article, erase it! It's not my personal loss really but Wikipedia's. Yet this emerging term NyLon can not strictly speaking be erased anymore since it has fatally and already entered the vocabulary of the English language. Apostolos Margaritis 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering you're no newbie and that you have been warned before, I should be taking you to WP:AN/I for this comment and the piece of hate mail you left on my talk page. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. Dahn 21:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Calm down Dahn! Under no circumstances my missive to you can be described as "hate mail". So stop using self-made labels and sticking them on this message board. You do not impress anyone around by playing the pathetic "tough guy" card. I tell you what: better mind your own businesses by which I mean the dull platitudes gathered under the title the "Walachian 1848 Revolt". Articles such as NyLon are perhaps an inch too demanding and too ground breaking for your peace of mind. Apostolos Margaritis 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Please be so kind and do not delete that part of my text whith my comment, i.e. my opinion (if the other part, referring to the tag, has to be done away with). Otherwise it is plain censorship. I, Ralsog Iref 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC), earlier wrote:[reply]
      ":Keep this article. At least keep it for a while (1-2 years). It is balanced and short. Even if "nylon" with this meaning is very recent, i.e. a neologism, and even it belongs to a category some call "trivia", why should such an information not be available @ en.wp? The term has also entered other languages (as the art. puts it, e.g. in German). If plenty of stuff has to be blocked and eliminated because of such criteria as those mentioned, then for what reason should I look things up in the Wikipedia? Only because I don't have to pay a certain... fee as I have for accessing old-fashioned encyclopaedias, e.g. Britannica, Meyers, Brockhaus etc., on paper or CDROM? --Ralsog Iref 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)" --Ralsog Iref 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep in spite of everything else. As others of us have pointed out, this is not a debate about what we think about Mr. Margaritis, but about the merits of the article. I am in no way endorsing anything that that person has written. On the other hand, there is an article called Nylon (magazine) which probably should be called "NYLON (magazine)", because this newsstand publication's title and its premise really is based on the idea of an interconnection between New York and London in fashion design. The idea of an Anglo-American, Fifth Avenue/Carnaby Street culture, is notable enough to launch a glossy magazine, and seems to have gotten notice elsewhere outside of the fashion mag. Thus, I think it's more than a neologism. I think that the "defense" in this case hasn't helped the article's chances for survival. I can only suggest that the NYLON Magazine piece be stretched (without getting a run in it of course) to accomodate the New York/London concept that was expressed in what was a fairly well-done article Mandsford 02:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment If I understood correctly, your vote is actually "merge into" another article (I also proposed this in my "delete" vote). Dahn 06:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep although some sources may not be the best, I would suggest keeping the article while finding more dependable sources. I don't think we are here to predict what will or will not stick with the times. If predicting is what the naysayers want, then I predict that as the world becomes more interconnected with the uses of the Internet and improvements on transportation that this term will become even more common. We can argue the lasting impact of the word all we want, its not up to us whether it will last, it is in use now and should therefore stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanlammi (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — Ryanlammi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Keep. The sources are reputable enough to keep, even if it's a neologism. How do you expect Wikipedia to remain interesting if you turn it into a conservative encyclopedia? Wikipedia's force is exactly the fact that it includes lots of aspects that could not make it into an encyclopedia, such as the list of Friends or StarGate episodes, or the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (which is, of course, 42). Dpotop 09:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment. Thanx Dpotop! As a matter of fact new and solid references keep popping up like pop corn. Apart from FT and The Observer we've got now the über-cool The Independent defining NyLon. The NyLon conurbation was defined by The Independent's Gilbert Gerard as "a nexus between New York and London - the common bond between the two great cities" see Toil of two cities in The Independent Aug 9, 2004 by Gerard Gilbert Apostolos Margaritis 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Nylon (magazine) - The term is a neologism for a virtual city and, as such, doesn't merit a separate article. The magazine, on the other hand, actually exists and relevant information from this article would seem to be a good fit for its article (which could use some expansion, anyway). —Travistalk 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I rather think. (Which could be merge of course.) I believe there was also a Radio 4 play with this title, or making extensive use of the term. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03 13 November 2007 (GMT).
      • Comment A merge may be reasonable, given the disconnectedness of the use of the phrase (see my comment above). The basic info could be salvaged and the Nylon (magazine) article could be expanded, which needs doing anyway. freshacconcispeaktome 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. So you want to expunge NyLon while keeping Nylon (magazine)? That would be exactly like keeping Wallpaper* (magazine) while eliminatig the article wallpaper (material which is used to cover and decorate the interior walls of homes). I find the of logic behind this planned move of yours quite irrational to say the least. Your analogy with SoHo should not apply here. These Sohos you allude to have different meanings. The London Soho has a specific etymology which has to do with the old hunting (or rallying) call while the NY SoHo's is that of (being situated) South of Houston. In NyLon's case there is a distinctive thread, narrative if you wish, which has to do EXCLUSIVELY with NY and London coming together. That is not Soho/SoHo's case: we haven't got this South of Houston (hi)story here in London, though as putative parts of a virtual NyLon the two Sohos might one day absorb a new, expanded collective meaning Apostolos Margaritis 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete in its current condition. The article is crap. It's worse than the breathless speculation which used to fill Wired Magazine. Argyriou (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I'm not really commenting on the above user's personal choice of words. It tells a lot about his cultural horizon. But I forgive him not least for the sake of a higher aim, that of making him understand things are sometimes more complex that this "black and white" dichotomy he seems to be a fan of. As for NyLon being "speculation" as Argyrious puts it, well, the sources it relies upon are of such repute (Financial Times, Sunday Times, The Independent, The Economist and The Observer) that no sane person could really raise by now any objections as to the very existence of this "concept" or "acronym" of NyLon. Don't argue with me (don't "kill the messenger") but with these above mentioned cultural commentators who belong to the "crème de la crème" of the printed media. -- Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 19:54, 16 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 (closed by non-admin) as per 3 previous afd's, this afd is heading the same way. RMHED 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Asian fetish[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      The article Asian fetish has been nominated for deletion twice three times before. Although it is uncommon that an article be nominated for the third fourth time, I nominate the article for deletion again for different reasons.

      The article has gone through a lot of overhaul since the nominations for deletion and not in a good way. The article has had multiple problems, one of them being original research and lack of reliable sources. There are only few sources, and everything deemed to be OR has been deleted and the article is still a mess. The templates and the external links seem to be about twice the size of the actual article. I propose that this article be either deleted or be merged into Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians. mirageinred 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment - I didn't notice that there was another page named "third attempt." mirageinred 03:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The most recent deletion discussion ("3rd attempt") suggested that the article be trimmed down to only the information that was sourced. However, the article has yet to be cleaned up, and problems still remain. mirageinred 03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep per reasons previously stated under the keep arguements on the first, second, thrid CfDs. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 05:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep I agree to user Christopher Mann McKay .The former deletion discussions show clearly the great scientific and political significance of this topic and the political struggle against physical anthropology which all has to be included.The wrecked article with its "warning" labels being longer than the article itself is a symbol of the destruction of serious science in the West. Consensus is fine intended for truth finding, but maybe it would be better if some articles would be written by a new d'Alembert and Diderot.80.138.154.98 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep I concur with the 2 previous strong keeps.
      • Keep - Needs cleanup not AfD. --DAJF 13:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep - I only scanned through the old discussions, but I don't see any problems with the current version of the article that would require deletion. The subject is notable and a great number of reliable sources exist that can be used to verify the content. While synthesis of the content of these sources would qualify as original research, I don't think there is enough in the current article to qualify it for deletion. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 14:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and expand. This is probably an article that would benefit from a bit more subjectivity. Merger with Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians is pretty near inconceivable; while an Asian sexual fetish is no doubt based on stereotypes, the article ought to point some of them out, and note their inherent contradictions. Some Asian fetish material plays off of perceived submissiveness, but there is also the frequently encountered stock fictional character of the dragon lady. Since there is so little about this sort of thing in the article in its current state, it doesn't belong with the stereotypes article at present. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - aren't articles only suppose to be put up at AFD twice? Rudget zŋ 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no limit. One article in particular (which will remain nameless) was deleted (finally) after 18 AFDs. shoy (words words) 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Ah, I see. I still have a lot to learn then :) Rudget zŋ 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Wow, think of the billions of fetishists in China, Japan, India, etc. who have "a sexual preference for Asian people". Mind boggling. Mandsford 02:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep There is clearly sufficient material to show it's encyclopedic. The nom's argument is that he thinks it needs editing or perhaps merging, which is hardly a reason for deletion. I hope sentiment will clearly build about the attitude to take towards repeated nominations such as this -- the matter has been raised repeated on the talk page for AfD, and the people who comment there seem to prefer to leave it as it is. If people are finally beginning to think otherwise they should let their voice be heard there -- and on other appropriate policy pages. Consensus about policy can change. it is time this one did.
      • Keep. AfD is not cleanup, and the subject is definitely notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:14, 13 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 --JForget 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      From Dusk 'til Dawn (book)[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      From Dusk 'til Dawn (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This may be notable but it's entirely self-sourced and all edits appear to be from animal rights activists, so the neutrality is also questionable. Google is no help due to the somewhat generic title and a similarly titled film starring Harvey Keitel. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete No reliable sources, sources that exist are questionable at best. No independent claim to notability, either. Skinwalker 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, if the book is notable it can be written about anew in the Mann article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, its an advert Victuallers 13:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and then redirect to From Dusk Till Dawn, which is what people who type this in will actually be looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as the article lack reliable sources. Majoreditor 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete couldn't find any reliable, third party sources. ~Eliz81(C) 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. In the event this article is kept, it must be renamed as the title is too similar to the title of the movie. It should be From Dusk 'til Dawn (book). No vote as I lack information to cast an informed judgement on the article itself. 23skidoo 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete This looks like vandalism to me. 'From Dusk 'til Dawn' should redirect to the movie. I think that has to be done after delete. --Neon white 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This article is now renamed From Dusk 'til Dawn (book) and From Dusk 'til Dawn redirects to the movie. I felt this should be fixed before the deletion issue. --Neon white 21:54, 13 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. Kurykh 03:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      INADVENC[edit]

      INADVENC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      The article isn't encyclopedic. It doesn't have much momentum going for it. E_dog95' Hi ' 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, It is is not clear what the article is about and has a title that only those who know about it could find. Victuallers 13:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Delete. The text of the article discusses a technology known as InVANET, which has its own article already (and is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InVANET). The last line sums up this topic, INADVENC, as "a google group specifically discussing on InVANET." The article doesn't discuss its actual topic, and the actual topic isn't encyclopedic or notable in any way, shape, or form. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom et al. --Evb-wiki 17:06, 12 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. Participants are invited to discuss inclusion criteria on the article's talk page. Hut 8.5 10:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      List of cities by longitude[edit]

      List_of_cities_by_longitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      DELETE Hey, listen, the research on that page is excellent, and I know a butt load of work went into this, however, WP:NOT#DIR makes this page non-allowable. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Why is then List of cities by latitude not considered for deletion? Dentren | Talk 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It probably should be considered too. Anyways, that argument is basically WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- HiEv 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Precedent and analogy are perfectly valid arguments, despite essays to the contrary. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Because it's been given more latitude? Clarityfiend 06:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete per KoshVorlon (WP:NOT#DIR) and articles should not be mere collections of internal links (WP:NOT#LINK). If this goes then List of cities by latitude should go too. -- HiEv 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Throw this AfD out. Malformed, not correctly included in Articles for Deletion, directions not followed. List is completely encyclopedic and valid, by the way. Relist it correctly if you want, but be prepared for an avalanche of keep votes. Tim Shuba 03:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep This article is a perfect example of a Navigation List described in Wikipedia:Lists. Lists do belong in Encyclopedias despite not being article. Earthdirt 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete even for an almanac this would be iffy. JJL 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. A navigational list, and the very epitome of non-random information. The easy way to answer the question of whether one city lies further to the east or west of another. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Smerdis. Absolutely a non-random navagational list. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The problem with lists like this is where does it end? By definition, every city in the world can be included on this list, thus we end up with an unwieldy monster of a list which can never be completely finished. I think we need a better way of breaking this down. Tx17777 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Where does Wikipedia end? Is Wikipedia an unwieldy monster? Will Wikipedia ever be finished? How'd we break down Wikipedia? The same concepts apply here. The Transhumanist    14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I bet there's some fancypants way of turning those little geo-coordinate thingies into a list(s) or category(s) of some sort. shoy (words words) 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      THROW OUT COMMENTS BY TimShuba - because he's clueless !!!!!!!! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep This is a geographically structured list with clear criteria. I fail to see any reason to delete. -Chunky Rice 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and reorganize it Well, the article is well organized as of now. But as other has pointed out, every cities in the world can be listed here. Then we will have an unmanageable monster list. Chris! ct 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per above. Generally, the laissez-faire structure of Wikipedia keeps this from happening. If one person adds junk, someone else takes it back out. In this way, articles are never really unmanageable. Every irrelevant item in the world could, theoretically, be listed not just here, but in any other article on Wikipedia. That this doesn't happen that often in practice is testimony that an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" works. Mandsford 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep If it became unmanageable, we could deal with it. We can not throw out every article that might become difficult to edit--especially if the difficulty were to arise due to a sudden epidemic of irrationality beyond any previously seen even on WP. Mandsford has it correctly.DGG (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Weak keep. Most geography lists are the sort of lists that serve a purpose, and this could not be categorised in any good way. Still where are the criteria for inclusion here? If it included every city it'd be unmaintainable. I mean, why is Aberdeen on list of cities by latitude but not here in list of cities by longitude? Because it's a geographically significant city in the UK for being so far north, but not significant in any way relating to longitude perhaps?-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Potential size does not make an article unmanageable. If that were the case, then Wikipedia itself would be unmanageable. Even if Wikipedia was unmanageable, that wouldn't be an argument for erasing Wikipedia. Neither is it an argument for erasing any of its parts. But Wikipedia is manageable, relatively speaking. And it is infinitely expandable, as is each of its parts. An example of list expansion is the List of mathematics articles, which now contains over 20,000 items so far. And it will probably never be complete, just like Wikipedia. So what! It's still very useful. The Transhumanist    14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and define criteria for the inclusion / exclusion of towns and cities. -Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep for now and set a clearer criteria to keep out minor villages etc. I'm open to renomination at a later time if this list would get out of hand. – sgeureka t•c 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep but clear criteria (poplation?) need to be set up. --Jklamo (talk) 16:52, 17 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. Davewild (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      List of political leaders who held active military ranks in office[edit]

      List_of_political_leaders_who_held_active_military_ranks_in_office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      DELETE Per WP:NOT#DIR, also not referenced at all. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - While it is true that Wikipedia is not a directory, the fact is that lists also qualify as encyclopedic content provided they serve an encyclopedic purpose and adhere to the other guidelines of Wikipedia. This (extremely extensive) list is narrow enough to be useful, and all pages link to full Wikipedia articles which contain verifiable references. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Doesn't violate WP:NOT#DIR which says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". Refs can be found in the links, or where not the linked-to articles should be cleaned up. Phil Bridger 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as the list serves as encyclopedic content, per jonny-mt. In all honesty, though, the list should probably be reviewed to ensure that references exist at each of the member articles (especially for historical subjects). That's not a cause for deletion, though - that's just cleanup. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep for the reasons stated and, by the way, improve. Perhaps a sortable table with names country, position, dates of office would be helpful. Hmains 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, excellent list. 96T 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Few of these leaders achieved notability due to their military service and this service was not always a major reason behind their success in achieving power. As such, it is not in line with WP:NOT#DIR which states that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" [emphasis in original]. List of Coup d'état leaders and/or List of military government leaders would be a more meaningful classification and would include everyone who's notable for the combination of their military service and leadership on this list. --Nick Dowling 09:42, 13 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 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area[edit]

      List_of_surface_transit_routes_in_the_Baltimore_Metropolitan_Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      I have proposed this article for deletion since it is duplicate of other better, written articles that have been created ever since. These include MTA Maryland bus routes, History of MTA Maryland, and several articles called "Route x (Baltimore)." This article's title is very long, and the others have shorter ones. Sebwite 15:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep; if anything it should be redirected, not deleted. And I believe there have been some surface lines that never evolved into MTA Maryland operations. --NE2 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep As a summary of information, this article is useful and it not obvious this information exists elsewhere in WP in such accessible form. Since when was a long article title a criteria for deletion? Please cite the WP policy or guideline. By the way, the article might be improved by standardizing the column widths of its tables. Hmains 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • week keep it is repetitive, but their is not article closely similar. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk Review Me! 23:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Per Hmains. Tim Q. Wells 00:00, 15 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. The article is not properly sourced and seems to truly be a form of neologism. JodyB talk 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Maximum pain theory[edit]

      Maximum pain theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This seems to be a combination of advertisement, neologism and nonsense. Busy Stubber 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you, DumbBOT! :)) --Busy Stubber 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment Today a user added a new comment to the article's talk page, so please consider that comment. Maybe he doesn't know how to put the comment here. I don't understand what he's talking about, but maybe you do. Thank you. --Busy Stubber 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. Completely unsourced.Biophys 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Rubbish. 12.118.190.10 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, for now. The article is certainly a mess, but I'm not convinced that deletion is the right course of action. I found a couple of sources[20] [21] suggesting that this is a legitimate concept in options trading. It may well be a neologism or advertising, but I think we would benefit from more people taking a look at this - preferably people with some knowledge in the area.--Kubigula (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Seems to be a blatant advertisement. I'd say speedy and tag it {{db-spam}} but it's a little late for that now. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 19 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. W.marsh 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      McDonald Gym[edit]

      McDonald_Gym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
      • Delete per nom - No references, does not appear to be at all notable. Temperalxy 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete doesn't appear to be notable or have any sources. If sources can be provided I am willing to change to keep. TonyBallioni 13:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to Lamar University. The facility does not appear notable enough for its own article, though sources could prove me wrong. A brief google search reveals nothing of major note for this facility. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:14, 12 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Skullduggery FC[edit]

      Skullduggery_FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
      • Delete - club indoor soccer team. no references. Oh Snap 17:41, 10 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. Kurykh 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Young Deuce[edit]

      Young Deuce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable Canadian hip hop duo. Blackjays1 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, nonnotable rappers, no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No assertion of notability. No real sources. Decoratrix 16:05, 12 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. Kurykh 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Zippy the Circle[edit]

      Zippy the Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      34 unique Googles including WP and mirrors, no evidence of significant independent coverage, no mainstream sources at all, only "family friendly" (i.e. conservative Christian) sources. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete No indication of notability. NawlinWiki 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete It's been on the mainspace for nearly a year--the lack of external references in the article combined with the lack of Google hits indicates a persistent lack of notability. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 14:44, 12 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.

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Combs (Catholic priest)

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

      The result was delete. Kurykh 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      DSM Band[edit]

      DSM Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      seems non-notable per WP:BAND. no sources, googling dsm + "in the midst of chaos" pulls up a couple of self-references and some false positives. anon removed prod. tomasz. 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Nonnotable band, no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete NN. to my knowledge DSM hasn't 1) charted on mainstream charts. 2) been signed to a major label 3) been on national tour 4) members once belonging to another notable band 5) won/nom'd for significant awards 6) emerged as a definitive group amongs the CR scene. 7) been the subject of national tv coverage. see Wikipedia:Notability (music) The criteria for notability is hardly rigid so I could be mistaken about DSM. maybe it's only a matter of time before they are but as for right now the subject is NN and probably even qualifies for speedy deletion.True theory 15:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Decoratrix 16:10, 12 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 via WP:CSD#G7. If anyone wants the content, just drop me a line on my talk. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      EJadSPM System, Complete Web Host Billing & Hosting Automation[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      EJadSPM System, Complete Web Host Billing & Hosting Automation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Speedy tag removed on the grounds of similar articles existing. PROD would probably be contested. This article lacks reliable independent sources that would verify the notability of this product, and it is written in a tone which is promotional, not encyclopedic.

      Also nominating:

      Delete all except cPanel, which was included for the sake of fairness.

      Blanchardb 12:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete All unless notable third party references can be found and added to the pages. The pages of EjadSPM & Helm are all filled with Hogwash and no notable third party references. The cPanel page is lacking references all together, but a search on google shows wide spread use of this app. So Weak Delete for cPanel. Ghits for EjadSPM are few and none are ground breaking. GHits for helm are more, but since the article is written like an ad, i still vote delete on that one too. Andante1980 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete EJadSPM Software, EJadSPM Automation, and Helm, as all three appear to be unsourced and unsourceable. Notability issues exist as well, though - according to the article - the EJadSPM software was released in November of 2007, so maybe it'll be notable enough for an article in time. No objections to a (properly named!) future article on any of the three, provided that it is neutral and well-sourced. Keep cpanel, as it appears to be both sourceable and notable. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete all. Each of these articles includes unencyclopedic puffery (From cPanel: designed to make administration of websites easy). Even if the subjects were noteworthy they would all have to be rewritten from scratch. None of these packages are really consumer software, and there is no showing of notability for any of them in the articles as they now stand. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete All, Except cPanel. Puffery can be fixed. Non-notability can't except for the passage of time and external forces. spryde | talk 15:48, 12 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 per consensus and newly-added nontrivial reliable sources. As for merging into a single article for both of them, that can be handled (if desired; consensus was less clear) outside the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Brian Sinclair[edit]

      Brian Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Brian Sinclair and Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon) were British vets, and brothers. They happened to work with Alf Wight (who wrote as James Herriot). Their sole claim to fame was having characters from Herriot's novels loosely based on them. A PROD tag was removed from Brian Sinclair by an IP as the article had "interesting background information" (I don't see it myself). I submit these articles fail to meet our requirements for notability per WP:BIO, failing to show any real notability. Neil ☎ 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Also included: Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon).

      • Keep or merge and redirect to a suitable article. They certainly add to an encyclopedic treatment of Herriot's works, so I think deletion is counter to our purposes. They are tidy little stubs, need sourcing but we can't expect perfection, and let's not forget the second rule of Wikipedia: Leave something for somebody else to do. If the mood of afd is really that they can't support articles, please find somewhere where this useful information can be added so that we succeed in our remit to educate and inform for free. Hiding Talk 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding to an eneyclopedia treatment of Herriot's works suggests they should be at best merged into James Herriot. WP:BIO is pretty clear on what is and is not article-worthy, and these articles about vets are not.
        If you believe they could be sourced, please do feel free to provide examples of such sources. Sources would include "a credible independent biography", "widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources", "demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources", or "in depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field". Our remit is to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the sum of human knowledge. The key word being "encyclopaedic" - articles on common or garden vets are not encyclopaedic. Neil ☎ 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete no independent encyclopedic value. Knowing someone notable does not incur notability. MLA 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. AFD appears to be based on subjective grounds, at odds with the requirements of WP:Notability. Good primary and secondary sources easy to locate (I've added 2). As for WP:Use common sense; I think we need to ask ourselves if someone using WP for researching the James Herriot novels would expect to find articles on the main characters they were based upon ? I say yes. Consequently I feel that removal would lessen the usefulness of WP. -- Daytona2 15:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect to James Herriot or All Creatures Great and Small or other appropriate article. The two real life vets have no notability except by being the models for literary characters. It is very unlikely that anyone would go looking for them under their real names, and the information available on them is not extensive enough to justify separate articles. It would not overbalance the article on James Herriot to include all the information in these separate articles in his article. Sam Blacketer 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep to a suitable article. I basically agree with Hiding, but I feel more strongly about keeping. We have full articles on obscure characters mentioned just once in an appendix to the Lord of the Ring, so I'd say we should keep an article on a real person who inspired a major character in a classic series of books. Vincent 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I never like pointing this sort of thing out, but the presence of one poor article does not justify another. Neil ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect. As a long-standing Herriott fan I have only barely heard of these two, and the sources derive entirely from their status as Heriott characters. No need to lose the info, just trim a bit and put it where it's most useful, which is in the context of the Herriott characters. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as the inspiration for a semi-fictional character, I wouldn't ordinarily think it important--but in this case the character and the book is so extremely notable that the article is justified. DGG (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep both per DGG, but merge into a Donald and Brian Sinclair article. These two people were the basis of central characters in a massively popular fictionalised series of books/TV programmes and are central characters in a museum, so they are more than an obscure pair of muses; notability per WP:BIO is established by the references added by Daytona2. The articles are short but well-formed and well-referenced, and although I wouldn't object in principle to a merger into James Herriott or All Creatures Great and Small, the Sinclair borthers don't appear to me to be an easy fit, and I dislike articles where something has been visibly plonked in to disrupt the flow. However, the articles on the two brothers could usefully be combined into an elegant start-class article, without either losing info or overloading the other articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A merge into a single article would be an improvement from the current state. Neil ☎ 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as per BrownHairedGirl, while at the same time addmitting a bias, as I edited both articles at various times. Jcuk (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep or Merge as articles like these give pertinent information on well loved characters and are part of the charm of Wikipedia.
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete as spam. --JForget 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      QR Tango[edit]

      QR Tango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Originally nominated for speedy deletion under G11, blatant advertising. Appears to be non-notable product, if anyone can figure out exactly what they're talking about... SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Quite possibly an attempt at promotion of some product. Zero ghits. It's got nothing going for it. Andante1980 11:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Non-notable: Possible advertising intentions aside, this product/technology must be a well-kept secret since Google turns up no references - nor in Japanese if this is a Japanese invention. --DAJF 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Apparent inept attempt to advertise an entirely non-notable product or service. The article adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, and should go. Mayalld 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Apparent attempt to publicise - me too Victuallers 13:34, 12 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. Kurykh 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Whatabout music[edit]

      Whatabout music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Not a notable and verifiable music article. The 130 unique ghits failed to yield any reliable info. MER-C 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Notability not even asserted. Decoratrix 16:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. No assertion of notability through WP:CORP. As far as WP:MUSIC, minor labels are considered notable if they've been around more than a few years and have a roster of artists, some notable. That doesn't seem to be the case here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:23, 15 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. OR, OR, OR. -- Mike (Kicking222) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      What Killed WCW??[edit]

      What Killed WCW?? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      A contested prod. Concerns are about the POV and the OR nature. I agree with the prod-people here. UsaSatsui 08:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strong delete per article title (sounds like the title of an essay) and per nom. --Blanchardb 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as original research. --Hnsampat 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, original research/essay. NawlinWiki 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, appears to be origanal research. TonyBallioni 14:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, OR. WTF is WCW? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, no research at all on your part. WCW was the second biggest wrestling organization in the world before they were bought by the WWF in March 2001. TJ Spyke 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Article was copied verbatim from here: [22]. - Richfife 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete The_Death_of_WCW as well. It's a redirect, but the author used its history to create this one (warning tags and all). - Richfife 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and redirect to World Championship Wrestling per all above. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why redirect? The title itself is POV and the author has already used the history of a redirected version of the article under a different name to create this one? - Richfife 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. Already well covered in non-essay form. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete OR, essay, no sources. TJ Spyke 18:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
      • Delete, entirely original research. Nikki311 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Tough one ain't it?-- bulletproof 3:16 02:02, 13 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. GRBerry (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Oduber[edit]

      Oduber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. Probably hoax: there's no evidence that Gustavo Oduber held senior political positions on Aruba - but the present Prime Minister has the same surname; no ghits whatever for any of the alleged events in Gustavo Oduber's life; unreferenced. andy 07:37, 12 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 CSD G12 as copy of [23]. GlassCobra 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Wiremedia Bluetooth MediaServer[edit]

      Wiremedia Bluetooth MediaServer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Unverifiable meta-spam that looks good in pink (there are some non-spam versions in the history, however). 20 unique ghits and zero news ghits under a brand. MER-C 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Pure promotion of a product. Violates at least WP:SPAM & NPOV. Andante1980 10:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete - Add Copyvio to its list of sins. --DAJF 12:27, 12 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      List of television and radio stations in Zamboanga City[edit]

      List of television and radio stations in Zamboanga City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Only a list of media companies. No other substantial content included and a mere violation to WP:NOT#DIR. If possible, transfer it to WikiDirectory (Is there any so we could save the content anyway)? --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)}} BritandBeyonce 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • keep No reason to target this Phillipines city radio and TV stations list. The Category:Lists of radio stations and Category:Lists of television channels shows that such lists are well established for various cities throughout the world. Argument made about 'directory' WP:NOT#DIR can be used against each and every list in WP, but WP accepts lists as part of WP so deletion argument has no merit. Hmains 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename Media of Zamboanga City. Basically per Summary style, but this is specifically what we do with WP:CITIES too. The city in question has a population of 700k and it's entirely reasonable that there should be subpages. This is a decent enough start for an article on local media outlets. --W.marsh 00:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge into the created (but empty) List of Philippine broadcast stations or similar - a geographic area this small does not need its own special list of broadcast stations when a larger, sortable list can do the job. JPG-GR 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Mbell 791983 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)The contents should not be deleted until there is a Wikidirectory availabe.[reply]
      • Keep. There are lists of TV stations for every US state in Category:Lists of television channels, which all seem like perfectly reasonable lists. This is by city, which is a bit different, but as W.marsh says, it's a big city. Maybe someone will reoorganize by region, or separate TV from radio, but not every country can be as neatly divided up as the US can into states. Mangojuicetalk 16:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      {subst:ab}}

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

      The result was delete. Kurykh 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Terrible Three[edit]

      Terrible Three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Delete stub about non-notable characters that do not merit their own article. This is in addition to the fact that the fact lacks proper sources for its assertions regarding which characters were combined (the issue mentioned does not explicitly say so); the fact that it involves OR, subjective interpretation about the alleged merging of these characters; the fact that it fails to point out that this is about fiction; and several other problems. Doczilla 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete a lot of concern has been raised about various Amalgam articles (as it was a series of one-shots with a lot of meta-fiction) and this is definitely one of the ones that highlights the issues - only appearing in someone else's comic, speculation/original research on the characters and a thin entry that has little chance of being expanded much without being pure plot. The team might be worth a mention here but that is about it. (Emperor 15:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Decoratrix 16:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Amalgam Comics itself deserves its own article, but only a small group of individual characters are notable enough outside of that subject to deserve their own articles. That group does not include these characters. Stephen Day 09:24, 15 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 oppositions raised, and the subject requests its deletion. krimpet⟲ 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Malcolm McGookin[edit]

      Malcolm McGookin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Borderline notability, subject requests deletion. ^demon[omg plz] 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Tentative Delete: I can't view the action ticket, but if the subject is requesting that the article be deleted, then perhaps it should be deleted. While I think the subject is notable, I feel now that it is clear with the current request and past article history that the subject would much rather write the article himself. --健次(derumi)talk 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless notability can be established through better sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: When creating the current iteration of the article, I was unable to find any hard-copy sources. What was originally referenced is what all I could find that didn't directly come from the subject. --健次(derumi)talk 18:20, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Patriot Party of Canada[edit]

      Patriot Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable group. First, it is entirely original research; no secondary coverage is available via google search. Second, it fails WP:ORG: it has never run candidates for election, registered as a political party or, as far as I can tell, done anything other than put up a website. I quote from the article: "Following the initial posting of information on the website, there does not appear to have been any organizational activity." Galteglise 05:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. The article itself is quite old with few edits and may fail WP:COI. I am from Canada myself and this deletion notice is the first instance in which I have ever heard of this organization. --Blanchardb 10:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and redirect to Parti patriote 132.205.99.122 20:25, 12 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 --JForget 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      The Game of Pitton[edit]

      The Game of Pitton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Never has there been a more obvious violation of WP:NFT, which the article admits in its first sentence. Contested prod, procedural nomination. Caknuck 05:24, 12 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. Defaults to keep. W.marsh 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      David Salo[edit]

      David Salo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      First, I'm having trouble categorizing him. Is he notable because he's a linguist who happened to work on a hit movie, or is he notable because he worked in the film industry as a language consultant? The one extant independent, reliable source (the Detroit News article now redlinks) suggests the latter but doesn't demonstrate the extent of notability required by WP:BIO for creative professionals. On top of that, only 10% of the content of the article is supported by the source; the remainder is some combination of unverified and possibly original research.

      In September, discussion was started in the talk page about the dearth of sources, and none have come forward. The article was prodded today, and I agree with the message used there (other than that I'd say "nearly devoid"): "This article has remained devoid of reliable sources for nearly a year. The fact that even supposed "scholarly reviews" of the subject's work lead to Yahoo!Groups posts implies he does not satisfy notability guidelines." Fails WP:BIO criteria for creative professionals, fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Is it required to fit in only one of those categories? Why can't someone be notable for a combination of reasons? Why can't he be notable, for that matter, for reasons that WP:BIO fails to exhaustively list?
      Can you be very specific about what facts you believe are unsupported assertions? Remember, WP:RS and WP:V are meant to uphold the idea that everything in WP is something that the user could, if they felt like it, verify by using some other source. You're not being specific about what it is you think is possibly false about the article.
      As for the scarequotes on "scholarly reviews" and Yahoo!Groups, the poster in question might not realize that said Y!G is a moderated forum specifically for people who study this sort of thing. So I fail to see what the problem with such a source is exactly.
      Are you or are you not asserting that some of the claims in the article are or may be false? Please explain. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reluctant Delete - The subject has a very low level of notability, hence the low level of verifiability. Also per WP:BIO and WP:PROF the article doesn't seem to stand up. With regards to Yahoo Groups, regardless of it's moderation (who by, to what standards ie/ low notability) it's still fails WP:EL and has a distinct smell of WP:COAT about it... Shot info 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      All of what you cite (including WP:NN) are general guidelines, not rules. WP:EL isn't even that, it's a *style* guideline. And you haven't explained how it has anything to do with whether some particular fact(s) (which ones?) in the article are or are not verifiable. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Feel free to add your own Keep vote if you feel that the article is worth keeping. Your comments are not going to make me change my opinions. But even better, how about you improve the article? Shot info 09:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      This is supposed to be a *discussion*, not a vote. As such, I am trying to get at what seem to be the flaws in your argument, so that either they dissolve as being unsupported, or are better explained and therefore more convincing, rather than being a vague "I don't like it". Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Being the "world's leading expert on [Tolkien's elvish languages]" is by itself a valid assertion to notability. So is being a linguistic consultant to the Lord of the Rings, due to the importance of linguistics in that work (remember that Tolkien was a linguist too). He also has published a book on the subject with quite a few scholary reviews[24], as well several scholary articles.[25]. As for secondary sources, he has been covered by several major media outlets, including the BBC, the AP, Fox News, the Daily Herald, the Chicago Sun Times, the Saint Louis Dispatch, and the Boston Globe [26]. To me he seems to fulfil WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V--victor falk 08:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep As an amateur Tolkien linguist myself I must say that David Salo is one of the names that keep popping up all the time. If I'd have to name the persons with most renown in the linguistic society focused on the languages created by Tolkien, Mr. Salo would definately be on the list. He has also published a book A Gateway To Sindarin: A Grammar of an Elvish Language from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings already mentioned by victor falk, which should alone be enough to keep him in Wikipedia. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - the book and the film work satisfy notability in my opinion. Carcharoth 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Info - I don't edit (or vote on) this article, so just some information for consideration: The 'missing' Detroit News article was actually an Associated Press piece printed in hundreds of newspapers and thus can still be found on many other sites. Different articles can be found here, here, here, and in various other places. Also, his IMDB page lists four credits (the movies and a tv documentary) - which could also be confirmed or sourced to the productions themselves. Finally, the "Yahoo! Groups" site with the reviews is moderated (and some of the reviews written) by the linguists entrusted with Tolkien's unpublished papers on Middle-earth languages. They are, like Salo, widely recognized experts in the field - though of an 'opposing camp'. --CBD 12:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep He has had enough media coverage to be considered notable. Epbr123 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Clearly notable as an author and scholar and for his work on the "Rings" movies. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Although he has authored his first book, there is insufficient material on him (including the aforementioned verifiable source material) to warrant an article. His role as a consultant on Jackson's LOTR has garnered some publicity, but as the AfD poster notes, it is not clear how much of this is due to the notoriety of the films. If more editors would come forward to contribute material, it might be appropriate to keep this article, but otherwise I think that the existence of an encyclopedic article is somewhat premature for someone as relatively early in his career as Mr. Salo. Banazir 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      *Delete Salo is unfortunately only noteworthy for his verbal abuse of animals, hatred of figs, and his obsessive and unaccountable love for the movie "Dark Crystal." None of these seem particularly worthy of note. Sword n sorcery 01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) struck as irrelevant DGG (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete A pointer to IMDB would be enough. Although Medievalists have informally taken up the banner of Tolkien scholarship, anyone can call themselves an authority on Tolkien. (With mixed results, see David Day.) Quick: name the person who consulted on _Stargate_! Does that make them 'notable'?-55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.132.221 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete I don't want to denigrate or downplay the work that Salo has done and is likely to do, but realistically, I'm not sure he's done enough to justify an entry. His major area of notability is his work on Jackson's LOTR movies, and they're getting further and further in the past all the time. Call me crazy, but somehow I can't imagine that his graduate work on Tocharian will spawn a bestseller and make him more notable. FeatherD 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      comment For a scholar, attaining a best seller is not necessary--he will merely need to become an important authority on the particular object of his study,. I agree he has not attained this status yet. DGG (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      comments Good point. I was comparing apples to oranges there. His scholarly notability is next to nil at this point, since Tolkien language students are all amateurs (doesn't that sound snide?), and he is not yet established as an authority in Tocharian. Which means that any notability stems primarily from the film work, and that is at best a one-line footnote. FeatherD 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      comments. Amateur scientists. Oh yeah, what a worthless bunch. It makes me think of guys like Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Fermat, Lavoisier... come to think of it, pretty much every scientist before the 19th century. If you think that "tenured = scholarly", you're wrong, wrong, wrong.--victor falk (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


      • Comment - the discussion above about his professional work is not relevant. The article has never been about his work on Tocharian, but always about his work on Sindarin. There are plenty of sources documenting this. The only question is whether there is enough for a stand-alone bio, or whether the material is best folded into a topic article. Category:Tolkien linguistic studies contains similar articles. See also the parent category Category:Tolkien studies. If all the Tolkien linguistics articles were merged into one article, that might start to get unwieldy. The point here though is that the only two realistic options on the table are merge or keep. If you delete, you still need a redirect for people who will search for information on David Salo, and the information here is verifiable. It is purely the location and extent of the coverage that should be in question, not whether to delete it all outright. Carcharoth 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you nailed it: "It is purely the...extent of the coverage that should be in question." The article as it stands now is overloaded with analysis and unverified personal information, and that's what I object to as non-encyclopedic. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think an article for Salo laid out more along the lines of Marc Okrand (Klingon) would be appropriate. If the consensus becomes keep and prune somewhat severely, I will support that decision. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that's the problem. It doesn't look at all overloaded to me. A short, but still informative article that only takes a few minutes to read. Needs more verification, but then so do lots of articles. Need for verification is not a reason for deletion, as I'm sure people here know (though I note you put "fails verifiability" in your deletion nomination). By all means feel free to edit the article more towards what you feel it should say, and remove any unsourced statements you are not happy with, but withdrawing your nomination might be best if you agree that deletion is not needed. Editing and merging can happen without involving AfD. And AfD shouldn't be used to threaten deletion as a way to force people to verify articles. That's what ref and fact tags are for. Carcharoth 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahh, but the fact tags have been there for a while. So either the Community wishes the article not to be improved, or it doesn't have the information at hand. It is odd that there are many editors that have access to the pertinent information (above) who edit in projectspace, but are reluctant to edit in articlespace. AfD is what happens when a unreferenced article (ie/ one with ref and fact tags) kind of sits in articlespace for too long. Shot info 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      And if I go and edit the article now, does that invalidate the 'delete' comments above? I've always been in favour of a period of editing being allowed before the AfD opens: "you have a week to improve this article before it goes to AfD". Trying to edit an article during an AfD is possible, but either ends up being a waste of time, or leads to a relisting, or leads to a DRV if the closing admin fails to notice what is going on (ie. the article improves after most of the comments have been made). Carcharoth 02:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, such a comment was placed on the article's talk page back in September, and nothing came of it. Finally a prod was placed on it, and when that was taken off, I sent it here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. I see some attempt is now being made to improve it. I added a reference to published review of the book. My point here is that most of the material is salvageable to be merged under other titles and topics. If I do that after the AfD is closed, I'm forced to either undelete to preserve GFDL when merging, or to copy the relevant material into other articles and breach the GFDL. And my point still stands - David Salo is a useful redirect, so why not preserve the article history at the same time? I still stand by my assertion that the only options here should be merge or keep. The alternative is to merge the material now (crediting this article in the edit summary) and also leave it here. At some point, a better overview article needs to be written on the field of Tolkien linguistics. As I pointed out above, Category:Tolkien linguistic studies would be the starting point for this. Piecemeal deletion of articles from that category impedes efforts to write such an article. Can you see the point I'm trying to make here? There is nothing wrong with the material in the article - it is just the location and presentation. It is quite possible the article should be about this person's work in the context of the larger field, rather than about the person. AfD is a very blunt (and frankly destructive) tool for dealing with the kind of rewrites and pruning and possible merges needed here. If you were impatient with the lack of progress being made, you could have looked around for help at one of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page. Articles are on watchlists, but if talk page posts get no response, why not try one more alternative before AfD? Carcharoth 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - verifiability concerns have been addressed. Further concerns should be noted with the addition of 'fact' tags. What else needs to be done here? At what point will the article have changed enough to warrant a relisting? Carcharoth 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added fact tags to the other bits that needed them. How much time should be allowed for peopel to find the references? Carcharoth 12:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once I get some time I can dig up at least some of the references to the article. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 13:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relist? - since the last keep/delete comment above, the article has changed substantially, with numerous references added and some reorgansiation. See the changes here. I think this is enough to at least justify a relist or default to keep (if no consensus). Carcharoth 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      It should be noted that a majority of the references added are dubious RS' and the current discussion is about how low we have to put the threshold of sources in order to "match" the low level of notability of the subject matter. In other words we are accepting mailing lists, SPS' and personal websites due to the nature of the subject matter, because the subject just isn't notable... Shot info 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I count six reliable sources being used: Wisconsin State Journal, Tolkien Studies (x2), Phoenix New Times, Tyalië Tyelelliéva, and David Salo (the source for a quote from David Salo, from a post to the elfing mailing list). The latter is acceptable because it is being used to source a quote from the subject himself. The Ardalambion reference is to an online publication of Salo's material, and the earlier Tyalië Tyelelliéva reference is also to a work by Salo. It is perfectly acceptable to uses sources like these to verify the works in question. That only leaves the reviews, three to a moderated mailing list, and the other one to a personal website that may pass the 'expert' clause. Given all this, how does deletion help here? Carcharoth 03:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep or merge-- "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" ". "The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".From WP:BIO.Tttom1 (talk) 16:48, 16 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Kelsey Kiefel[edit]

      Kelsey Kiefel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Autobiography created by the student in question. May touch on notability, but I can't find any specific guidelines on actors or actresses; nor on voice actresses specifically. A Google search gives 0 hits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • This article is new and the voice actor is still a tryout for the voice. But as seeming nobody else has claimed to taken the position there will be no doubt that she'll get the part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsey Kiefel (talk • contribs)
      • Delete Not notable and probable vanity. Decoratrix 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Almost certainly vanity; simply trying out for an acting role does not make someone notable. Galteglise 05:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: This person isn't notable yet. - Rjd0060 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Vanity article by non-notable wannabe. --DAJF 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Galteglise, except that we're not supposed to use the term vanity anymore. We call it a conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Many voice artists fail the notability test and they have actually voiced shows. Alberon 10:14, 12 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 — Caknuck (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Norwegian International School[edit]

      Norwegian International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Little known school. Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The only linked source is a directory listing which indicates it is a kindergarten and junior school with 20 enrolled pupils. The footnote reference appears to be but a trivial mention Ohconfucius 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Non notable school. - Rjd0060 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The school's original and current mission, history, site and curriculum all establish notability. It is unclear who many people have to know about a school to address the "Little known school" standard. Alansohn 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP It is one of the most unique small international schools in Hong Kong. It is known in Hong Kong for it's small class sizes and intimate, family-oriented approach to education. It occupies a heritage building that is almost 100 hundred years old. It is also in the process of expanding and it's profile has been rising in the Hong Kong community. More information will be added to this page soon. [John Lok] 11:43, 13 November 2007
      • Strong keep. A unique school which once catered for Norwegian missionairies in Hong Kong. It has a long history, occupies a heritage building, and a book has been written on the school's history. Notability is already clearly established even though the existing article is still very short. Dahliarose 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Non notable school. Eusebeus 14:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep Cannot believe this nomination. A country with a population less than London and a language largely unspoken outside that country establishes a school on the other side of the world based on their culture and that isn't notable? This isnt low importance its High! Pity the article is poor, I bet Norwegian schoolchildren would enjoy seeing photos of an asian norwegian school. We are about Education. Thats what all this is for! Jimbo Wales is talking about the exchange of cultures and values. This is what is happening right here in this very article. I hope it isnt me who has misunderstood what is going on Victuallers 16:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - totally baffling that this nomination has any support. Probably the most unique educational arrangement in the world. Clearly notable. TerriersFan 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep Notable and strikingly unique; Wikipedia is enhanced by having an article on it. Noroton 23:40, 15 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 --JForget 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Trinity collision[edit]

      Trinity collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This article cites no coverage of the concept of the "Trinity collision" in any third-party reliable sources, and is believed to constitute original research. John254 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strong delete, purely original research. Only citations are Bible verses or dictionary definitions. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Per above (OR). Although I don't think speedy applies here. - Rjd0060 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Preserve!: It's a label I and a few other people have agreed fit this specific Bible contradiction. This contradiction of logic and dogmatic teaching is legit and should be talked about. The original idea for it came from a discussion [27]. Someone else will be coming to edit this soon to make it probably a bit more informational and understandable, I just wanted to get the article started. Please don't delete it! It's not meant to be offensive or flamatory, it's just pointing out a logical contradiction that exists, undeniably. I believe we can talk about responses to this too, and should. Please don't delete it, at least let us get a final product up! :) Compu73rg33k 04:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Thing thought up one day on a discussion forum. Galteglise 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom and, I suppose, Compu73rg33k. Maxamegalon2000 07:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No third party references and seems pretty thin to have its own page anyway. Alberon 10:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete per Compu73rg33k. See WP:MADEUP. A Wikipedia entry is not the right way to promote one's terminology. Not to mention that there are a whole bunch of people who would regard the article itself as POV, (including the entire WikiProject Christianity team) but that's another matter entirely. --Blanchardb 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The apparent contradiction this article addresses is already discussed in the article Trinity with no POV tag. --Blanchardb 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete per Compu73rg33k. The fact that "you and a few other people" use the term does not make it notable. Get your ideas, and your use of the term published by a reliable publishing house, get the term into widespread use, and it is much more likely. Pastordavid 21:08, 15 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. Clear cut advert/non-notable org. -Splash - tk 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      UniResMan[edit]

      UniResMan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Does not assert notability. Seems like an ad. Article is orphaned. Torc2 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete for smelling like advertising. Article fails to establish notability or provide verification other than a corporate website. Eddie.willers 04:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Non notable company. Definitely reads like spam. - Rjd0060 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy: Should have been CSD:G11. Andante1980 11:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete per CSD G11. TonyBallioni 13:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Per above. Lacks any claim to notability. -Harmil 18:53, 13 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 CSD G1. This was mostly procedural, but I agree that it's pretty obvious nonsense. GlassCobra 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Happy Fun Time Cult[edit]

      Happy Fun Time Cult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Pretty obvious hoax. Creator seems to be a borderline vandal. GlassCobra 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy delete per nom. Torc2 04:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Super happy Fun Time Speedy Delete Agreed. I was getting ready to do the AfD myself. I added the {{hoax}} tag, and it was promptly removed by the author, who was obviously delighted to discover a new tag and promptly added it to Holocaust. The author has already removed the AfD tag twice since I started to type this. Lets get him blocked ASAP, delete this thing and get on with our lives. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:15, 12 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. Possibility remains for recreation in a better form. CitiCat ♫ 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Hardest sport climbing routes in the UK[edit]

      Hardest sport climbing routes in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Delete — This article pushes at the boundary of what makes a topic encyclopedic. Long and sprawling lists of statistics are by consensus not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a guidebook or a repository of sports statistics. The article does not establish notaibility of this sub-topic and is poorly referenced (the given reference is dated earlier than many of the entries). ✤ JonHarder talk 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Per nom. I don't think this list is necessary/acceptable, as WP is not a guide. - Rjd0060 04:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete I think such a list ought to be notable, but I think verification from reliable sources is the real problem for this article. If each route's grade were sourced to a reliable source, or a reliable secondary source were found (I am certain that the UK climbing mags regularly run articles on this subject) then I'd be fine with it. The problem is that the grade of an unrepeated climb is always open to debate, as the grade emerges by community consensus, or guide book author whim. The unreliable nature of the article isn't helped by the sloppy wikilinking, guess where Wikipedia says the following UK crags are: Rubicon, Hollywood Bowl, The Anvil, Anstey's Cove... Pete.Hurd 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh Crap These sorts of achievements should be somewhere in the 'pedia, but not sure where. Obviously this list is crap at present. If this does end up deleted, can someone userfy it for me and I will source it and recreate it, or alternatively append it to one of the articles about sport climbing, either in the UK or otherwise. By the way, that Gaskins thing near the top is only a few metres and is probably the hardest thing in the world. No more bongos 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I am with Peter Hurd here. There is a WP article trying to get out of this mess. How do we get there? --Bduke 12:03, 12 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. Kurykh 03:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Faculties of the University of Hong Kong[edit]

      Faculties of the University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      No assertion to notability. Comprised mainly of external links to University of Hong Kong pages. In what little content is notable, is already available in the University of Hong Kong article. Luke! 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Please delete. We can't have a faculty page for all schools. Benjwong 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete WP:LINKSPAM Ohconfucius 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: No assertion of notability for the individual divisions of this College. And per above comment, linkspam. - Rjd0060 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep but need improve: Some sections such as HKUSPACE are not linking, but the whole article is a stub. Raymond Giggs 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per recent discussion of similar page for MIT. JJL 13:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Luke and Benjwong, nothing special but a simple directory. --Jackl 08:47, 13 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 g3 vandalism, g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 14:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Nescism[edit]

      Nescism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Violates WP:SOAP, and WP:COI (written by the founder). It's also unreferenced, and not notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Speedy possible? Rocket000 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete for being barefaced nonsense. Eddie.willers 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BJAODN, easily. Though, I wonder if the author of this drivel was trying to be immortalized therein. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consign to the realm of un-knowledge, as the only poetic response to an article of this caliber. Also, incidentally, no reliable sources - though, again, the subject really is unsourceable, intentionally so. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: WHAT? It is an unreferenced thing made up one day / original research. - Rjd0060 04:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete with a vengeance. Utter nonsense. Alberon 10:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Nonsense, move to /dev/null. Andante1980 10:34, 12 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 — Caknuck (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers[edit]

      Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable model who only generates 8 unique Google hits.He was mentioned in this South African paper [28], but that was well over a year ago and he obviously never became famous. Seems these days he's really a personal shopper [29] RMHED 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep and cleanup. Although it's true that temporary coverage does not confer long-term notability, it is my understanding that the existence of a biopic article confers notability per WP:BIO. In addition, the subject of the article has (apparently) appeared on TV, in commercials, and in print ads, which are grounds for arguing that he has a level of name recognition. I am concerned about the verifiability of the article, although given the fact that it was started only a few hours ago I am inclined to give it more time to see if the author can come up with a sufficient number of reliable sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral: Just created today, so I'll wait and see if any sources are provided. If not then it isn't verifiable, so cannot be called "notable", delete. - Rjd0060 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep per coverage at sundaytribune.co.za. Epbr123 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do i add references to the article? or External Links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigj2006 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. There are numerous articles of his modeling achievements. Regardless if the newspaper was in USA or South Africa? he still made enough of a "buzz" for the newspapers/magazines to feature lengthly articles on him.
        www.sundaytribune.co.za/index. php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=3148350 - 31k -
        http://boereworsexpress.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-sa-model-hits-big-time.html
        —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigj2006 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 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. Kurykh 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      98th Grey Cup[edit]

      98th Grey Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Fails crystal ball test, host will not be announced until next year Samuell 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Per CBALL. Not enough info yet for an article. Give it another year or 2. - Rjd0060 04:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Way too soon. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:41, 12 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. CitiCat ♫ 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Fourteen Words[edit]

      Fourteen Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Notability unproven, doesn't really say anything or add to the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy Keep Pretty notable I'd say, don't understand your reasoning re. the add anything to the encyclopedia argument.RMHED 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Its clearly not a speedy anything and I meant exactly what I said, it adds nothing. It has certainly taught me nothing yet I had never heard of the term and that is the first article I can say that about in my years here, also its not at all notable, being Fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say you'd never heard of the term, well now you have, so you have learned something, surely that's the point!RMHED 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The point is I still don't know what the article is about. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      <d> Delete Merge and Redirect to The Order or to David Lane. I agree with Squeak. Sadly, the Anti-Defamation League seems to have helped immortalize David Lane by making an article on its site about a 14-word sentence that Lane imaginatively called "The Fourteen Words". If Hitler were alive today, he'd be saying (in Mock German) "Vat a dumbkopf!" Mandsford 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Neutral Actually I heard about this on The Discovery channel or something. I think it's notable, yet I'm sure if it should have it's own article. It depends on how much there is to say about it. Rocket000 03:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here are another Fourteen Words - We must secure the existence of our encyclopaedia and a future for pro-deletionists. Hence, delete for misplaced notability that is not established beyond the agenda of the ADL. Eddie.willers 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't explain why it does not meet notability guidelines. the_undertow talk 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Per Will Beback's comment above. No need for a separate article for just this info. - Rjd0060 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that I am wikilawyering, but I am curious as to how this particular article fails WP:N? I like the fact that people are willing to come to a happy medium, but since this AfD deals with the inclusion of this article implicitly, where does it fail policy as to its staying as a separate article? the_undertow talk 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. If the subject were covered in another article, and this article added no substantial depth of coverage, then the "adding nothing to the encyclopedia" argument would be valid - since the information is already in the encyclopedia. In this case, the sources provided (in addition to the sources noted above in this debate) establish the term's notability, and demonstrate its verifiability. The term is not significantly covered in other articles, so far as I can tell. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commment I've changed my position to a merge and redirect to The Order. If there's one thing that all this proves, it's that American Nazis, unlike Der Fuerher, don't know shit about how to write. The fact that it ISN'T covered in another article, like David Lane or The Order, gives us a clue that the authors of those two pieces didn't think "The Fourteen Words" was anything notable. That Nazis feel that this rather bland slogan (We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children) should be their rallying cry is pathetic. Anyway, put it stick it up Mr. Lane's article, since it's part of his rich contributions to the world's literature. Mandsford 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've changed to merge and redirect to David Lane (white nationalist), he coined the phrase so it would be best on his article. RMHED 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. I just googled "The fourteen words" after seeing the phrase used without explanation in an article on extremist political groups. This article gave me the info I was looking for. I didn't want an article on The Order or David Lane, but on the fourteen words. Seems to me to meet wikipedia standards of notability etc. Babajobu (talk) 21:51, 17 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 --JForget 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Neodems[edit]

      Neodems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Non notable term with very limited use. Googling for "neodems" or "newodemocrats" "neodemocrats" as well as the phrase "Australian Democrats" gives only one page - this WP page. Also short enough to be incorporated into Australian Democrats. Peter Ballard 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: The reliable source (ABC) doesn't even mention the term "Neodems". So I'd probably say per WP:NEO. If some sources can be found, it could be included in Australian Democrats, but otherwise, delete. - Rjd0060 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as unsalvageable POV political campaign material. The cited information could, if others see it as useful, be included in the Australian Democrats article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - any useful material can be included in the article on the Democrats as per Mattinbgn--Golden Wattle talk 01:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - as non-notable. The two "sources" in the article are completely unrelated to the topic and don't mention either the Democrats or the allleged "neodems". A search reveals no other relevant use of this term. Euryalus 02:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. Twenty Years 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above -Pumpmeup 20:04, 15 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 --JForget 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Wirral (crater)[edit]

      Wirral (crater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Article is about a crater on Phobos that is officially unnamed and probably not notable, the user who created the page has apparently just decided to give it a name and create an article. Snigbrook 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Speedy delete. It was given that name... yesterday? And by some nobody without authority? --Blanchardb 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - I could not tell it from a hole in the ground. This particular hole is not recognized by the IAU (look it up in the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature) and has no other redeeming value. MER-C 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. -- Jack 02:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as a hoax. "Havard" (sic) University astrology section? Yeah, right. Clarityfiend 03:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as absolute BS. Paragon12321 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Complete crap. As I wrote on the talk page (was part of the prod2 tag I placed). The crater this article refers to has never been named, and is not mentioned in a list of craters on Phobos. ARendedWinter 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Even if that does eventually turn out to be the crater's name neither that or the crater itself is notable in any way. Alberon 10:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - me too - reconsider in 2008 after naming has been agreed Victuallers 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete — Probably a hoax. Astronomical names are officially determined by the IAU, not a university's astrology section (if such even exist). — RJH (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, sorry guys, 'twas a hoax. Delete as you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumRedhead (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 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. Kurykh 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Temporal paradox (paleontology)[edit]

      Temporal paradox (paleontology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      The article is a non-encyclopedic personal essay. The article contains cites, but they do not verify the text. -- See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought (specifically Template:Essay-entry and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day), WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Template:Citecheck, and possibly Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. -- Writtenonsand 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, or Merge any salavageable content to Origin of birds. Seems more of an essay than an article, and the lead sentence "If we imagine that Dromaeosaurids or Troodontids (together called Deinonychosaurs) evolved into Archaeopteryx and then into birds, why do we find such dinosaurs in fossils from after Archaeopteryx and birds evolved?" misses the point of evolution entirely. The fact that there are still many gaps in the fossil record, and the fact that some species with more primitive (or rather, more basal) features survive while more advanced (or derived) species perish is kinda self-evident: there are still fish swimming in the oceans and frogs hopping around in ponds, despite them evolving eons before humans. "The notion of a temporal paradox is based on several fundamental misconceptions about paleontology and evolutionary biology, and by misrepresentation of the evidence" (Prum, R.O. 2002) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Although there are about 14,000 ghits, the ones I've seen have been on blogs and other non-reliable sources. I cannot understand what half of them are talking about. Anyhow, I agree with Firsfron's comment above. - Rjd0060 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete it and the links to it, possibly the reference in temporal paradox too. It's just a coat rack and a POV fork of Origin of birds. Circeus 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No only an essay, but a flawed one too; there's no paradox, as Firsfron explains. The whole thing is balderdash. --victor falk 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or merge any non-OR material to Origin of birds..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 14 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. Davewild 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany[edit]

      Japanese Ministers, Envoys and Ambassadors to Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      List of mostly redlinks and/or nonlinks linked from only one substantive site. Little work has been done on this article in nearly 14 months and it's difficult to see how it's notable within the EN Wikipedia. If anything, notable Envoys, etc can be linked from the parent articles but the usefulness of this list is not immediately apparent. Its creator has not edited in the last 11 months. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Looks like this needs a lot of editing, indeed. However, I can't find anything similarly complete in the net and it is probably helpful for those working on J-G relations. Don't see why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.82.55.76 (talk) 05:37, 6 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, Tikiwont 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Not because an article about foreign relations between Japan and Germany wouldn't be worthwhile, not just because the combinations are infinite (i.e., Paraguay's ambassadors to Belgium), but because this will never be much. This is essentially a chronological list of names, with no clue as to what any of these individuals contributed. Saburo Kurusu (1939-41) is the only significant name on the list; he was in Berlin as Japan's representative when the Axis pact was signed, and he has an article of his own. Even the excellent article Ambassadors from the United States limits itself to "selected" (i.e. well-known) former ambassadors. Mandsford 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. While this article's use may be apparent in the future, its too incomplete currently. Furthermore, it does not cite any sources and it has been like that for quite some time now (since January 2007). And I agree with Mansford; its just a list of names, there's no mention of what the officials did on their trip to Germany. For all we know, they might as well be on vacation :). --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and categorize; on a more humorous note, Mandsford, the number isn't actually infinite, just n^2... But this sort of thing makes perfect sense for categories - Category:Japanese ambassadors, subcats Japanese ambassador to Germany, etc. And you can hardly argue that Japanese ambassadors to Germany were unimportant given the circumstances of WWII. --136.223.3.130 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct, 136. The combinations only seem infinite and boring. In reality, they are not infinite, but still boring. Going back to Saburo Kurusu, I think he would probably be the only resident of the category of Japanese ambassadors and the subcategory of Japanese ambassadors to Germany. No ambassadors is unimportant during their time of service; only a select few of them rate more than a footnote in world history. Mandsford 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, I fail to see the ground for deletion here:
      1. Not for english Wikipedia? Please remember this in an English language Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia about English topics.
      2. Useless? A chronological list of ambassadors can be very usefull from a historical perspective.
      3. Redlinks? Either these are articles that can be created, or the wikilinks can be removed.
      4. Boring? Thats just in the eye of the beholder.
      5. Categorize? This is a chronological list, which can never be categorized without losing information.

      Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment to new voters and closing admin, I today changed the article to have better formatting, referencing and show more useful information in English. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The individual Ambasssadors, though not the interim ones, are arguably notable--that we havent gotten around to the articles is presumably temporary. The en WP is the WP in the English language, and covers all the world, as do the WPs in other languages, subject only to the limitation ofthere being people to writethe articles. DGG (talk) 17:43, 8 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, John254 00:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - clearly encyclopedic and complete list. If somebody created stubs for all the people, the original submitter probably wouldn't have noticed. Send to appropriate WikiProject/Experts. Lars T. 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I would be happy to tidy up the dates and rearrange the table more logically (i.e. name - position - date), but will wait until the decision is formally made to keep the article before taking the time to do this. --DAJF 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It would be a greater service if you would do some research to briefly summarize what any of these individuals contributed during their representation of Japan in Berlin and Bonn. Saburo Kurusu is well known. I'm sure that the story of Samejima Naonobu (first ever Japanese envoy to Germany, at the time of Bismarck) must have been very interesting. Sugimura Kōichi and Funakoshi Mitsunojō were present as World War I broke out; Matsuzō Nagai the first after Hitler became Chancellor; Kōhei Teraoka the first after Japan and Germany were free again to control their own foreign relations; I can't help but wonder, however, whether this will ever be more than a list of names. There seems to be no expectation that anyone supporting this list would ever care enough try to research or try to find out anything else about Samejima, Sugimura, Funakoshi, Matsuzo, or Kohei. And frankly, if you don't actually care about what these gentlemen accomplished, then you're making a mockery of their careers as a bit of trivia. Mandsford 02:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Needs some work, but it is a well written list, with an established subject. - Rjd0060 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: These are very useful lists for those creating biographies. Many notable people are ambassadors and vice versa. This is not an infinite list. Number of countries squared is in thousands not millions. Victuallers 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep lists of ambassadors are credible lists. This might not be a great one and the title might need to be paired down a little but there are comparable lists of English ambassadors as those sorts of lists are more favoured systemically. MLA 15:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - high reference usefulness - obviously would be improved by more inf on named individuals, which presumably will accrete in the course of time. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep One of the cirteria for lists is indeed useful. The individual people on it do not have to be notable in the sense of WP:N--just the overall topic needs to be, and it clearly is. The category will not do as well, for there is resistance to considering each individual ambassador as notable. (Personally, I think they are, as the highest relevant office) But even if we did have all the individual articles, a list would be the clearest way to organize them, for it would provide the sequence--not just the names, which would not generally be as meaningful to most users.DGG (talk) 08:04, 13 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Randy Griffin[edit]

      Randy Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      There is assertion of notability, but frankly, the article as it is written right now is unsalvageably incoherent. Delete and start over. Blanchardb 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, page is merely an unformatted list of match results and is skating very close to being a copyvio of the one reference. It's not worth having an article if there's nothing else to say than that he exists and he's had some matches, and just looking at his match record doesn't show that he's notable. -- Mithent 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, page has completely changed and there's worthwhile information now. -- Mithent 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Per above. This is the type of thing that would be best to just start from scratch. - Rjd0060 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep: Per the Recent changes made. Good work. Rjd0060 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Neutral Improvements noted. Hopeless lack of context and oddly formatted text that is probably a copyvio. Decoratrix 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep He's fought for a world title as a pro. Also was a member of the US Select team as an amateur and fought in the Goodwill games which means he passes bio as both pro and amateur. Still needs work, but he's notable. Horrorshowj 08:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per above and per recent changes which greatly improved the article. JJL 13:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nomination withdrawn per JJL. --Blanchardb 18:09, 12 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. Kurykh 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Ron Paul Girl[edit]

      Ron Paul Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Page reads like advertisement and was created by a user whose only contributions have been to this page. Chadamir 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete for being a misleading article about Ron Paul's campaign videos and being utterly bereft of any factual info on the subject at hand. Eddie.willers 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep This is certainly notable enough. If you don't like the page, argue with Wikipedia standards for notability, which favour cartoons, video games and other pop culture items with a low bar for passing the screen. Per present standards this is a keeper. Decoratrix 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when are Metacafe and Blogspot reliable sources, let alone third-party ones? As it stands, this article doesn't just miss the bar, it whangs it's head on it. --UsaSatsui 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Check out the current article sources which include coverage by CNN, Fox News, the Paul Campaign website, USA Today and others. Decoratrix 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Unless references (other than metacafe and blogspot) to verify notability can be added to the article. -- Rjd0060 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete lack of news coverage; effectively an ad for the actress/site. JJL 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as it has no verifiable sources, and does not appear to be notable. TonyBallioni 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete not encyclopedic, no reliable sources, borderline advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete due to lack of reliable sources and non-noteable. However, the situation could change if this publicity campaign gets covered by the mainstream press. Majoreditor 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Coverage has been picked up by CNN and Fox News. This is a very new phenom. Give it time to develope. Over 250,000 people have watched one of the videos. It has become a part of the 08 U.S. presidential campaign, like it or not. Decoratrix 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Her being mentioned on the USA Today blog is all well and good, but it's just another blog. You cannot say that one blog is more valid as a source than another, and in this context, they have been said to be invalid as a source. Your other source provides coverage by journalists, but it really doesn't show her as being covered over any significant amount of time. At best she is a human interest piece, and should he not receive the nomination, this page will read more like a resume and most likely fall into neglect. Isn't there a better place for her than her own article? Perhaps his campaign page? If she's not significant enough to be included there then I don't see how she's somebody that should be included in an encyclopedia.--Chadamir 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Response The Ron Paul Girl is mentioned in Ron Paul's article, but merging all this material into Ron Paul would give the Ron Paul Girl coverage undue weight in Ron Paul. By the way, since when is the length of time of media coverage a criterion for notability? Decoratrix 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary --Chadamir 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep but improve the article's quality. 12.10.248.51 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Per present standards this is a keeper.
      • Delete and waiting for the AfD appearence of Chris Dodd Girl, Mike Huckabee Lass, Dennis Kucinich Woman and Female Fred Thompson Supporter Doc Strange 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Why are we trying to delete the article on the Ron Paul Girl? The Barack Obama girl has not one, but two articles about her and no one's marked them for deletion.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Got_a_Crush..._on_Obama
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Lee_Ettinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.76.94 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Response Then Mark them for deletion. I simply stumbled upon this one.--Chadamir 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Why are we trying to get rid of the Ron Paul Girl? There's nothing wrong with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.184.142 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Notable on the web. Shown on Fox. Republican version the the Obama Girl. Medtopic 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The Ron Paul girl should stay. She's an icon now and anyone within the Ron Paul Grassroots campaign knows about her. I find nothing from the rules of deletion to be applied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasu (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Interesting to note that the comments after Nov 12 23:30 strongly favour keeping. These commentors saw the page when the notable sources were added. Thus the later commentors should be given very serious weight since they saw the poperly sourced version of the article. Decoratrix 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The following Keep comment was found on the article talk page and I am transferring it here for completeness. "The Ron Paul girl should stay. She's an icon now and anyone within the Ron Paul Grassroots campaign knows about her." (note this unsigned comment posted by User:Vitacore} Decoratrix 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Response The sources provided still do not establish her notability as lasting and not temporary. One of the comments justified keeping it based on the notability within the grassroots campaign. This does not establish notability as it is word of mouth and still temporary, even though I'll assume good faith and say its true. The fact that someone can find nothing wrong with the page doesn't mean there still aren't problems or that it actually is notable. This isn't a campaign or political issue so much as a wikipedia issue. As I've said I'm all for deleting the Obama girl too. One bad article does not justify another. The comment from the talk page was already posted here by that user although they did not sign so no need to repeat it. I've striked it out and the fact that it was posted by two different people in the same exact words is suspect. --Chadamir 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete this is not a biography, it's a "wow, hot!" fan piece about the campaign tactic. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 17 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. The page was a copyright violation lifted from Schweitzer's website, specifically [30]. In addition, deletion of this article seems to be the consensus here. I believe this person may very well be notable; anyone should feel free to create a new article if they write original text and base it on reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Jeff Schweitzer[edit]

      Jeff Schweitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      This article is an autobiography/resume of Jeff Schweitzer (talk · contribs). He has made no edits outside this article. The other major contributor is Digitalr (talk · contribs), an unidentified user who also hasn't made any edits outside this article. This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, but the nom was (rightfully) declined, because there were at least some assertions of notability. However, when looking into the assertions more closely, not much remains. He is a scientist, but he doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He was a civil servant, but not a very notable one. I think the highest he achieved was the position of "Assistant Director for International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy", basically the second in line at a department of an advisory body. His aviation-related publications were either in his own magazine or in non-notable magazines. The scientific publications do carry some weight, but it doesn't appear to be sufficient weight to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AecisBrievenbus 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Agree with above; effectively written cv. Judging by the results of a google search he seems to be an accomplished self publicist with a large catalogue of publications to his name, however that alone does not make him notable. --Geoff Riley 06:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Agree with Rjd0060. Also, looks like self promotion. Andante1980 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete The neurobiology section at least is making a great deal out of a few minor contributions in relatively unimportant journals. DGG (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete The most shameless self promotion I have seen yet. --Crusio 23:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete, it's really bad as self-promotion, but I'm shocked that you haven't see worse, Crusio. There isn't even a section on a conspiracy to keep the subject quiet! :) (Seriously, it reads like a self-promoting marketing text for the subject, but at least it makes some real notability claims, cites specific verifiable sources, etc. But like the others above, I just don't see it passing WP:N even after the hyperbole is removed). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do Not Delete,I would say some comments are simply incorrect. Minor civil servant? At the State Department, I oversaw 3000 projects in 82 countries; in the White House, I was in charge of International Science and Technology. Aviation publications? These are not typically peer-reviewed, so searching for such is off base. Neurobiology: those journals in which I published are indeed peer reviewed, and are considered leading journals in the field. The entry is biographical, but so is the entry for Richard Dawkins, for example. I could get a colleague to make the entries on my behalf, so the fact that I have made them myself seems an irrelevant observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is perhaps a minor difference between a biography of a scientist agreed up on by friend and foe to have had a huge influence on contemporary biology and an autobiography from somebody that fails every standard of notability. --Crusio 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment statements from Crusio such as "fails every standard of notability" indicate a lack of objectivity in his or her review. Dismissing the Journal of Comparative Physiology, for example, as an "unimportant journal" indicates a serious misunderstanding of the subject,and again, lack of objectivity. Dismissing my contributions as a neuroscientist seems odd without reviewing the conclusions of my papers (neuronal plasticity in adults, conservation of central nervous system organization throughout evolutionary history). The importance of holding the position of Chief Environmental Officer, with a half-billion budget, overseeing 3000 projects; and holding a high-level White House position may be argued among reasonable people, but certainly rises above the notion of "failing every standard of notability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record: noone has said that you were "a minor civil servant". I am the only one who addressed that issue, and I have stated that your activities in the civil service do not appear to have been sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Whether the aviation publications are peer reviewed or not is not relevant, what matters is whether they are notable enough for Wikipedia. A notable non-peer-reviewed publication counts towards someone's notability, a non-notable peer-reviewed publication doesn't. AecisBrievenbus 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What is not notable about the following aviation magazines, in which I have published: Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot, Twin & Turbine, IFR? Those are THE primary aviation publications, and I have published in each. Back to the civil servant article; at the White House, I was one person away from the president, through the president's science adviser; I negotiated the first treaty between the United States and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union; I created the International Megascience Forum at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; your dismal of these as non-notable are not supportable by an reasonable criteria. If autobiography is such an offense, I can have the subject resubmitted by others. Plenty are willing to do so. Finally, one comment I found particularly odd; a Google search found me to have plenty of publications, so the conclusion from that was that I was good at self-promoting!Jeff Schweitzer 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff Schweitzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Schweitzer (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do Not Delete While this article may currently lack some direct links to secondary sources, it seems they should be easy enough to find online using search. A simple re-write to remove the WP:peacock terms and add a little more neutrality to the article will make it much better. As far as notability I see no difference between this article's notability and any of the articles on individuals that held past U.S. government offices such as those listed in WP:Office_of_Science_and_Technology_Policy. In addition, I find that this article holds as much, if not more, weight than those as Jeff Schweitzer is an active and internationally recognized specialist in his field.Digitalr 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

      • Comment Those people were science advisors to the US President. Seems a step higher than this guy. And in which of his claimed fields is Schweitzer and "internationally recognized specialist"? Certainly not in Neuroscience as already remarked above.... There is just too much hyperbole and not enough substance. "3000 projects in 82 countries"? According to this article, he joined the State Department in 1991 and left the following year. That's almost 10 projects per day, weekends included. I'm envious, I need the 3-year working days that this guy somehow has found, too! --Crusio 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I joined the State Department in 1987 at the Agency for International Development (an arm of U.S. State). I was responsible for 3000 projects when I consolidated several positions into the one of Chief Environmental Officer, a position I occupied until going to the White House. Your hostility is coming through in ever-increasing doses of misinformation. Jeff Schweitzer 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff SchweitzerJeff Schweitzer 01:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And no, others listed under OSTP were not above me, other than a few such as Bromley or Marburg. Jeff Schweitzer 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Jeff Schweitzer[reply]
      • Comment Author has been blocked for sock puppetry. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's snowing Given that the only person arguing for keeping this article was the now-blocked author and his sockpuppet, it looks like it's starting to snow..... --Crusio 10:07, 15 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. Kurykh 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Ramashram Satsang, Ghaziabad & Lucknow[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Ramashram Satsang, Ghaziabad & Lucknow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Absolutely no sources (neither primary nor secondary); Non-notable. Renee 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. Per nomination. Renee 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as no sources have been provided and it appears not to be notable. TonyBallioni 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: No assertion of notability. - Rjd0060 05:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: as per nom. Andante1980 10:42, 12 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 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Shock cooling (engines)[edit]

      Shock cooling (engines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Original research -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep with {{refimprove}} tag. This article has been around for nearly two years. Although the original researcher gave significant contributions to this article, he did provide links to the papers where this research originally appeared. Because of this, I do not believe it constitutes OR. --Blanchardb 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - the article needs more references, and facts may need checking, but it does seem to be genuine. Unfortunately many potential sources of information require subscription. Maybe the article could be moved to Shock cooling as there is nothing there, not even a redirect or disambiguation page. Snigbrook 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep per Blanchardb. Samuell 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep: Per above. Not OR. - Rjd0060 05:10, 12 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. Kurykh 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      The Story of Claudio[edit]

      The Story of Claudio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      All this is already explained within The Amory Wars. This contains personal views and is written like a review. -- Jack 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete: Per nom. Does read like a review, but nonetheless this is already covered in the other article. - Rjd0060 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Rjd. Decoratrix 16:27, 12 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 withdrawn. --Coredesat 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Gus Honeybun[edit]

      Gus Honeybun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      I PRODded this earlier, but the PROD was contested. I am not exactly convinced this character is notable. Despite the fact that it was on a long-running television program, the program was a local one and not notable on a large scale. Coredesat 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose (I contested the prod) - character and programme are synonymous. Programme was regional rather than "local" - covering pretty much the whole of the South West peninsula of Britain. The cancellation of the programme did receive extensive coverage in other media, tho' as it was before the internet it will be hard to google-verify. I am linking this discussion from the Cornwall Wikiproject so that editors with knowledge of the region can contribute. DuncanHill 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Running for 30-odd years, this puppet apparently achieved a longevity in the world of television puppetry second only to "Sooty". --DAJF 01:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rename as Gus Honeybun's Magic Birthdays. The show may have enough notability. Clarityfiend 02:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This is more notable and well-known in the UK than Google hits might suggest. Crazysuit 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I just saw this was prodded with the reason "no apparent assertion of notability but fictional characters aren't speediable". Isn't appearing on TV for more than 30 years an "assertion of notability"? Crazysuit 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep for regional notability. However, the show itself was but continuity filler, IIRC, and so not notable per se. Eddie.willers 03:28, 12 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 --JForget 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Donalism[edit]

      Donalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Article is probably a hoax VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete I'm pretty sure it's a hoax: likely Google references turn out to be misprints for "Donatism", a 4th century schism. The Catholic Encyclopedia has no entry. JohnCD 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. It turns up a surprising number of hits in Google Books and Scholar, but all these hits turn out to be misspellings or OCR errors (the aforementioned Donatism, and a lot of words ending in "-tionalism" where the OCR software has got confused and turned the "ti" into a "d"). ~Matticus TC 15:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless adequately referenced within the timeframe of this AfD, on suspicion of hoax. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No reliable sources and no references within the article. Tbo 157(talk) 16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete as a hoax, although it is funny. Bearian 00:28, 13 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 — Caknuck (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Frugetable[edit]

      Frugetable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Obvious neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary or publisher of original thought, no reliable sources (the Merriam-Webster is a public-editable website, thus failing WP:RS) and 24 google hits, first one is wikipedia. The remainder are wikipedia sub-pages, web fora, and other inapplicable sources. No evidence from google that this term has any real usage. WLU 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, non-notable protologism with no evidence of real use. I doubt anyone discusses this topic enough for it to even need a word of its own? -- Mithent 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. de Bivort 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - only 46 google hits. Not notable. Think outside the box 12:55, 16 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. The majority of consensus lies with the deletion of this article, primarily because of the lack of established Notability. Whilst the addition of citations is commendable, unfortunately the fact that they are in Chinese means that cannot be confirmed as Reliable Sources. Anthøny 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Tang Yuhan[edit]

      Tang Yuhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

      Not notable. Not verifiable, lacking reliable sources. Chinese version translated by Altavista on talk page does not add anything notable, nor any sources. No googles on Tang Yuhan doctor that do not refer to Wikipedia on him or to Catholic University of Leuven, where he is supposed to have graduated before 1930, making him at least 99 years of age. Paul Pieniezny 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep. I have added reliable sources to prove his notability. Unfortunately the sources are in Chinese language. If you can read, please check. Thanks.--Neo-Jay 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Because I do not want to run the risk of WP:BIAS being invoked, I have put the translation of these two on the talk page as well. Checking on the basis of WP:BIO, this is obviously not a hoax, but vital information for a real biography is still missing. The second article only confirms the most important feat, ie donating about a million US dollars to a hospital, and a large part of the biography was already in the Chinese version. We still only know about him from 1998, we have no birthdate, no (precise) dates for other things he is supposed to have done. The article summary calls him an eminent cancerologist, but the only thing which seems more or less clear is that he is or was a shrewd investor. How old is this man? --Paul Pieniezny 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete no indication of notability. Dahn 20:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. OK. I just added another two citations from People's Daily for his presidency of Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association and his great contributions to Chinese education. I don't know what your standard of notability is. But are those sources sufficient? If not, what proof do you need? --Neo-Jay 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Let us first say that thanks to your intervention, the article has improved a lot. However, there are still notability problems. First, his membership of the two British medical colleges. To become a member, you must pass an exam - but any exam will allow you to become a member of both (actually, also of the Glasgow college), provided you pay. And perhaps having passed the exam at Leuven already gave him the right to that membership. Do not get me wrong: any Chinese doctor who also has a Leuven diploma and has passed one of the three British exams is more than probably notable in China, but unfortunately not really in the English-speaking world (I could not find the membership number for the London college, but Edinburgh's website claims 10,000 members). No, we cannot have articles on any "good doctor", we could have an article on an "eminent cancerologist", if only someone had written about him and his methods, success rate, ... I found this about the Sino-Belgian hospital at Shanghai. I do not see Tang's name anywhere. The Hong Kong Chinese Medical Association claims to exist since 1995 - the text of our article suggests Tang was a president long before the 90s. But that is a minor problem (the text of an article can always be improved), far more damning is the number of members claimed: 128. That is about one tenth of the number of doctors in Iceland. of course: this works diffrently than the number of medical college members. The smaller an organisation like that is, the less notable its president. --Paul Pieniezny 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I'm neutral as to whether the the subject is notable, but I'd just like to point out that "probably notable in China, but unfortunately not really in the English-speaking world" is not a valid argument for deletion. English Wikipedia is a resource for the whole world, not just for those in anglophone countries. Plenty of people in China can read English and use English Wikipedia. You say that you don't want WP:BIAS to be invoked, but I am invoking it here. Phil Bridger 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. O dear, I should have expected that one. WP:BIAS is used to allow Chinese sources on him, though he lived for most of his life in an anglophone country, but did you read why I said he may be notable in China? There are at least 10,000 doctors (and probably far more, because I do not know how many members the London college has) in the world who have the same qualifications as this doctor. Every non-wiki source on him is in Chinese. The one English-language source on the first hospital he was president of, does not mention him. We are not talking about an Icelander, a Chuvash or an Ainu, but a member of the largest ethnic in the world. --Paul Pieniezny 14:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. As I said above, even though he may not be a notable doctor, he may still be a notable benefactor. I cannot see any notability of John William Sterling other than his great donation to Yale University. Ningbo Government and Zhejiang Government awarded Tang Yuhan two honorary titles for his contributions. I don't know how many people received such titles, but apparently much less than 10,000, I think. --Neo-Jay 14:54, 13 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.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_12&oldid=1081101068"