Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

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. — Coren (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creep (Warcraft)[edit]

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

This article is just a rehashing of a neologism, or a recently created word, and as this is wikipedia, not Wiktionary, it is not needed. As far as its article segments, they are just a regurgitation of gameplay mechanics from the Warcraft games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an unnecessary expansion of Warcraft III's own wording , quote: "The game introduces new units for each race and creeps, computer controlled units that are hostile to all players. Creeps guard key areas such as gold mines or neutral buildings and, when killed, provide experience points and special items to a player's hero. This encourages players to be aggressive instead of turtling." That's all that's needed.Someone another (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nom sums it up quite well for me. I have nothing to add. Captain panda 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This isn't just a new word, the adding of "Creeps" changed the way RTSs are played, as the article states, many other games incorporated creeps: Other games with creeps include the Spellforce series, The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth series, Dragonshard and Age of Empires 3. The 9.3 million World of Warcraft players know how fundamental creeps are to their gameplay as well. [1] On a tangent here... Many people are noting how delete crazy wikipedia has been lately. I hope this is a passing fad as it is not letting wikipedia realize its full potential. Spazm (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are "delete" crazy to rid wikipedia of unencyclopedic content that has latched itself onto the encyclopedia like a leech. With regard to this article, there would have to be many references to justify its notability, otherwise its notability extends just to Warcraft and the games that have copied its use of Creeps. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:25, 20 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 - mainly spam anyway. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 21:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Camilleri[edit]

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

Actor who has yet to achieve notability. Claims to have a role in an upcoming Daryl Hannah film, but that's at best crystal-balling. CitiCat ♫ 23:49, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom[edit]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Battle for Bikini Bottom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No proof of notability, poor sourcing, only game-guide content. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as game guide. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are no insurmountable poroblems here. Game-guide-style information can be removed. I'm sure several magazines have reviewed this game. Zagalejo^^^ 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remove the game guide content. Subject has several references among secondary sources. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to simplify things, would you please specify two of them which have substantial coverage, not just announcing the game has been released--and if they are not easily accessible, quote what they say. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] IGN and [3] GameZone are two reviews from the several available from Game Rankings, though most of the sources counted amongst the video game aggregate sites would count as reliable. They also list some magazine scores.Someone another (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checking whether a modern console game is notable or not is as difficult as checking Game Rankings or gamestats for reviews. It took all of ten seconds to check. Game-guide content and sourcing issues are irrelevant within an article on a notable subject - AFD is not clean-up.Someone another (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not its not part of the show! (talk) 09:23, 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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab[edit]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Creature from the Krusty Krab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No proof of notability or indication of importance, almost no sourcing, excess of WP:OR-ish game-guide material. Mr.Z-man 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as game guide. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple cited reviews are enough to establish notabilty. Other problems can be solved through editing. Zagalejo^^^ 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe because of the main character, there are quite a few reviews to be found about this game. The rest can be fixed with normal cleanup measures. – sgeureka t•c 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject has several references among secondary sources. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is blatantly obvious, AFD still isn't clean-up.Someone another (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, released by a major publisher (THQ) on five different consoles.--Nydas(Talk) 14:13, 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. Although consensus was not clear, lack of WP:RS and WP:V for the article after a month and a half on Wikipedia was a factor in my decision. These are core and foundation principles of Wikipedia. Pigman☿ 06:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl[edit]

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

Brand new teenie-bopper magazine isn't notable. Note, there's a somewhat complicated history here. Kewl was originally about the word Kewl and the magazine. Then somebody split them into two articles. I already speedied the turd left behind about the word. This should go too, but it's not as obvious as the other part so I bring it to AFD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With half a million copies, and a list of advertisers that includes Disney, AT&T, Sony Pictures and Honda, I'm afraid this publication, despised as we may find it, has achieved notability. Owen× ☎ 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind, it's not sold a half million copies, it's gave away a half million copies for free. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point indeed. But even if the next issue only sells 5,000 and the publication is closed, there is value in documenting such a spectacular failure in our encyclopedia as a notable publishing flop. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question-- Claimed to be published monthly; have there been any issues other than the first free promotional issue? I cannot tell from the website. Most new magazines fail, no need to keep this if it is a one-off. Kablammo (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They at least are still claiming to have another issue out soon[4] (Warning - don't follow this link if you are diabetic.) Doesn't look like article is headed for deletion at this time, but a year from now could be a different story. CitiCat ♫ 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for keeping it, I'm just saying it looks like it will be kept. Anyway, CBALL would apply to an wiki article about an upcoming issue, not the magazine itself. CitiCat ♫ 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sweet as it is, it is apparently an ongoing magazine, with 10 issues a year and subscriptions, per kewlmag.com. It also should be noted that CBS's KEWLopolis is kind of a tie-in with the magazine, so that may add some notability. -- azumanga (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep arguments are citing the subject. This is not using WP:RS and does not WP:V. "HomeKewl Magazine, the Hottest New Teen Celebrity and Music Mag" is just so much fluff. We need verifiable evidence of meeting WP:CORP or WP:WEB. No google news hits. No assertion of notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a single independent and reliable source about this. Does not meet our notability guidelines. Less than 40 google hits when searching +"Kewl magazine" -Wikipedia -blog. GRBerry 04:02, 24 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; there are seemingly unsurmountable problems about what Wikipedia is not, and notability outside the game universe, but the killer blow comes from verifiability. Without sources, the article is doomed to remain a repository of original research. This article is also the destination of the contents of a number of articles on the individual races which staved off deletion by being merged there; this has been put forth as an argument to keep— but I find it unsupported by policy, and therefore unconvincing. — Coren (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playable races in the Warcraft series[edit]

Playable races in the Warcraft series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is already a list of characters for the Warcraft series, there are also individual character articles where a character is notable. There is even a Warcraft universe article! But this list is just a mountain of original research, and which is also unsourced and written in an in-universe way, and is also a regurgitation of facts and trivia from the various Warcraft game articles, so it is entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm all for the elimination of fan writing, but this list is where I think several articles with marginal notability such as Forsaken (Warcraft) were/will be redirected to. I'm sure it is a mountain of crud now, but deleting it at this time might dampen the spirit of cooperation we are getting from fans of the game. After all, it is a hugely popular game, so a handful of articles will meet the mission of an encyclopedia. As for a policy reason to keep, it is that AfD is not cleanup. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarves (Warcraft), which closed on October 23, 2007 as merge. – sgeureka t•c 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as you can see from what the closer of that deletion said, there was a strong temptation to delete all of those articles for lack of notability, which is dead on; all those stubs put together make this still unnotable and unreferenced article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. This was just a procedural comment. :-) – sgeureka t•c 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete there are no references, or arguments of notability. The chances that there is extensive coverage of the topic of "Playable races in the Warcraft series" by reliable secondary sources as is required by the wikipedia policies of WP:N and WP:RS is nill. Where is the treatment of what this all "means"? Without such treatment this is an arbitrary collection of information, which is what an encyclopedia is not (WP:not#INFO). This is pure game cruft, with no encyclopedic value what so ever. Either it is deleted or the core policies of Wikipedia mean nothing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is the resultant merge from a clutch of previous WC AFD's only a couple of weeks ago. These subjects are in multiple reliable sources (exactly because they're playable), the other article (humanoid races) is the one which should go - it wraps up these ones alongside fodder enemies from Warcraft III. If you insist on some digging being done there's some potential sources brought up in the previous AFD, so I could have a look, but this could be a decent article if given a chance.Someone another (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a combination of various other articles only done a little bit ago. We should give it some time before we delete something like this. Captain panda 13:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normally I would agree with you, but there seems to be no real hope of getting a well referenced article, especially when there isn't even enough stuff on the races of warcraft in the Warcraft universe article, let alone enough references to justify a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite nearly an entire month after the merge, this article has still remained largely unsourced, unnotable fancruft containing a large amount of plot summaries.

The only source on the page is to a Warcraft site. It does not have a third-party source to establish its notability to the real world, indicating that readers who do not play any games in the series would most likely have no interest in reading these articles.

Along with that, it comprises of fancruft which has a tendency to attract original research, furthering it from being properly sourced. It also contains a large amount of plot summaries within the various races which Wikipedia is not.

It does not seem like any effort is placed into improving these issues of the article brought up last time, and it can be assumed that intentions of improving it will not occur without this AfD being made. IAmSasori (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even placing all the races into one articles, they still only have in-universe notability, and do not meet notability standards for fiction. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#GUIDE, and it is unlikely notability can be established by reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT. Many who !voted keep in the group AfD for the races argued that the information was notable yet no sources have been provided after a month and nothing has been done to assert any sort of real-world context or significance. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lump of unsourced game-related material easily mergeable with other articles. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 22 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. Nominate David Isen separately if deletion still required. David Isen qualified under CSD#A7 and deleted as such. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC) revised 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Prophet[edit]

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

A declined speedy deletion. Editor felt it qualified under WP:CSDa7. I have no opinion on the matter and this nomination is purely procedural. Also includes David Isen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Isen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Surprised it wasn't speedied. Kablammo (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is an article about the band and the subject seems notable enough for inclusion, but it looks close so weak keep. Captain panda 13:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is way too short and could be easily integrated into the band article since that is the sole basis of notability. If he has any individual notability, show it with references. Cquan (after the beep...) 00:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE. I have included the article on David Isen in this discussion since that article is in similar condition (very short, no notability beyond the band). Cquan (after the beep...) 00:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Kablammo. If the band and its members gain notability, it can always be written about again. --Vince | Talk 06:27, 21 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. Hut 8.5 07:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anetheron[edit]

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

This article has no notability, and as such is just a bunch of plot information put in an in-universe way without referencing or hope of referencing. The article duplicates the plot/character sections of the Warcraft game articles from which it came and has no outside universe information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Bruce Carter[edit]

Dr Bruce Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Are school principals notable? I don't know but I don't think so, even if people pay small fortunes to send their children to the schools he has run. The only source provided is not independent of the subject, being his employer. Mattinbgn\talk 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment School headmasters can be notable either if the schools are extremely notable, or if there is some good reason--but there is not enough specified here to tell. Obviously in need of expansion DGG (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete He's currently principal of a school established in 1984, with approximately 700 students. I see no notability accruing from that. His former job, headmaster of a boarding school (established in 1918, enrollment 1400 students pre-school to high school) may be more convincing to others, but I don't see notabilty, not without demonstrable extensive coverage by reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, etc. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does one accrue notability according to the actual wikipedia guidelines? By student numbers???? Ansell 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable secondary sources, and probably not notable either. Lankiveil (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Would you mind reviewing the article again now. Ansell 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no cited secondary source coverage leads to serious notability issues. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Serious notability issues" must be a pretty shallow definition if it can be based entirely on what is actually in a stub article. Better be careful reviewing articles like that without making an effort to do some research to get articles past that stage. Ansell 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Reasserting delete. I am careful in reviewing my articles. The AM membership helps but does not in itself put the subject above the notability threshold without further evidence, which I don't know where it could be found (nor has Ansell provided a place we might search for it). The AM citation lists, "For service to education as a principal, administrator and educator, particularly through Cranbrook School and professional educational bodies and forums." -- i.e., essentially what we already know about him, and does not seem to imply a level of service above the WP notability threshold. Yes, it's tragic that the notability guideline for people is so much higher than for Pokemon characters and Bus stops, but that's a discussion for another time. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. School principals are not notable per se (I'm even not sure that all schools are notable), and the article does not assert particular notability. GregorB (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has no relevance to the discussion of this article at all. Please review again however as the article is different now. Ansell 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and should have been speedy because notability is not asserted, and there is no "special case" applicable beyond WP:BIO that says he is notable just for being a principle... the closest would be the professor test which he comes nowhere near.Garrie 13:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst it is accepted that headmasters of notable schools (eg. Eton) are notable. I find nothing in this article to assert that this school is indeed very notable. There is a lack of reliable sources within the article. Twenty Years 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The guy has a MedalMember of the Order of Australia (AM). Everyone is assessing the current state of the article instead of going out and getting references. Is this a vote for deletion of a discussion of the subject of the article. Of course, you could make a subjective decision to delete based on a prejudice, but it wouldn't fit with the current state of the page. Ansell 05:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure an OAM makes one notable enough for Wikipedia. It is the lowest rung in the Order of Australia and is generally given to a number of very worthy people for community service and the like, but not necessarily (for Wikipedia purposes) notable people. A quote from the Oder of Australia article "The organisation also attempts to increase awareness of those honoured by the Order, since many of their number are not household names, despite their contributions." -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Comment. The subject has received an AM (Member of the Order of Australia) rather than an OAM (Medal of the Order of Australia). -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for getting the reference to Medal instead of Member. Member is however a rank above Medal, giving more impetus to the statement. Is wikipedia really reduced these days to subjective observations about these things however? Ansell 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For the people here who run on figures. "At 30 June 2006, there have been 5,693 recipients appointed a Member of the Order of Australia." That isn't many really when you consider the size of the country. [5] Ansell 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So he has an AM:
For service to education as a principal, administrator and educator, particularly through Cranbrook School and professional educational bodies and forums.
In getting noticed for that - did anybody write anything about him?? I'm guessing somebody did - if it can be sourced as a reference then he is probably notable.Garrie 04:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete His removal from Cranbrook led to greater involvment for parents on private school boards, and he's a non-Jewish person as headmaster of a Jewish school. Both of those seem notable to me. However, there really need to be more specific references. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete School principals can be notable provided there are reliable secondary sources. In the article so far, he is only mentioned twice incidentally in the source materials, so the article fails the test. Assize (talk) 10:40, 20 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. Balloonman (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Government in 24 (TV)[edit]

The Government in 24 (TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page re-creats Information avaliable else where on wikipedia. It does not add any value to the encyclopedia as a whole and would be better suited to 24 Wikia. The page is virtually orphaned andis not linked on any of the major 24 pages. The page is also in horrible need of upadting, activity levels are low and it contains a large amount of original research. I think the following policies are voilated with this page, WP:NOTABLE, WP:NOT#INFO and although not strictly policy WP:FAN Lucy-marie (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fancruft, no assertion of notability or referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I don't like individual articles for episodes or characters, this article is a concise way of clearing up some of the confusion in a very complicated hit TV show. A U.S. President is a major character in each of the different 24-hour days that make up the different seasons of "24". This doesn't contain anymore OR than any of the other TV articles. The only part I agree with is that it hasn't been updated and may be orphaned. Maybe someone (not I) can fix it in the next 24 hours. Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article seems to cut through some confusion on what is admittedly a hard show to follow from the outside. I have to believe, though, that this sort of material is contained elsewhere in a similar form. I'll look for it. I note, too, that a similar article, Regional Division Director at CTU, is also nominated for deletion here, and I think that's a separate case because (comparatively), that character is much less prominent than the president, as discussed in this article. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as "sub-article" of 24 (TV series). As it stands now it looks thrown-together in a sort of OR way, but I think it could be cleaned up. 24 is a big enough phenomenon that legitimate information needs to get spun off into daughter articles. It needs to be rewritten and thoroughly sourced, though. I would also recommend a move, maybe to United States Federal Government (24) or somesuch. For comparison, see Initiative (Buffyverse) and Alliance (Firefly). - Revolving Bugbear 15:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real world information, and the important information is already covered in other articles. -- Ned Scott (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Complete fancruft with no real world information. If we let this stay, we are inviting all fiction fans to create a page on whatever they see fit. asyndeton (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS becomes a valid reason to keep an article. All articles are assessed on their own merits, not on articles which came before. - Revolving Bugbear 18:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft trivia. RMHED (talk) 22:26, 24 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. CitiCat ♫ 02:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong's animal buddies[edit]

Donkey Kong's animal buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a collection of in-universe plot and character descriptions taken in bits from the various Donkey Kong video game and television show articles. It asserts no notability, because it has none, and as such is just duplication of other articles and has no out of universe sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course. Nominator, you forgot to sign. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In DK Country games, you can pilot animals about and smash stuff, the end. There are not going to be suitable reliable sources devoted to discussing these out-of-universe, and while the actual game mechanic of riding the animals about the games is worth mentioning in the articles, the animals themselves are neither here nor there.Someone another (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or AT LEAST Merge. I don't see why we have to delete everything in the encyclopedia that is not the immediate topic, but integral to the series. Donkey Kong is one of the most famous and recognized video games of all time. That is the reason that I think we should keep it because it is a part of many, many Donkey Games and it should be at least kept or merged into an article with adequate descriptions of each. Why should Halo have its own article about the Spartan suits while an all time classic can't have an article about minor characters? Doesn't make much sense to me... Kevin (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that article may not last forever if it doesn't get cited, believe me. But you must remember that though Donkey Kong and his games are very notable and encyclopedic, his "animal friends" are not necessarily notable and encyclopedic. They have to assert their notability by being referenced with creation information and reaction information, which I doubt you will be able to find. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anduin Wrynn[edit]

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

Article is not notable, and as such is reduced to citing a whole paragraph of the game manual from which the character comes. The article is an in universe stub that doesn't have any hope of being more than a stub, and is duplicative the of the character section of the game from which the character comes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:39, 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. GRBerry 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Youngboy[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, 1 single and a video. 19 gHits (most of which are for places to purchase said single). Article's only assertion of notability is that he's a Chinese doing Latin music and that all of a sudden his video has appeared on YouTube. -- WebHamster 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used "leon youngboy" c/w quotes and got 19 hits. When I refined the search term to ""leon youngboy" -blog -youtube" I got 17 hits. Not using the quotes will obviously get more hits as it picks up on the separate words.---- WebHamster 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmmm, the number of hits is changing every time I do the search. MY first search term comes to 14hits now, whereas the second one which was originally 17 now comes to 356. Either way it's not a whole lot for someone who's supposed to be burning up YouTube with new found popularity ---- WebHamster 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Being the supposed first musician of a different race in a genre usually associated with one race is not a criterion. Neutral, per the information provided by Answer8 (we'll need exact references for that, by the way). If he has won major competitions, is placed in rotation by a major radio station, or has a charted hit on a major national chart, he's notable. And back to delete. Those sources hardly seem reliable, two being in another language, and one has no useful content. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced with only tentative claims to notability. Caknuck (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer8 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I did some additional research, this artist has hit #1 on the pop and rap chart on Music Nation a contest sponsored by Epic records, Z100 radio station and Power 105, there are some pictures of it on www.hiphopfreemusic.com If that is not enough evidence that this cat has a sparkle worth noting, than I don't know what is. I hope you people read those articles so that you can see that I am not lying or making this up.--Answer8 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, I did some more research, it seems that this artist was hit 29,956 on myspace video page for the "It's All Good" video you can see it here in this link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8452103961738582641&q=leon+youngboy&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Then was hit 25,642 on the google video page here's the link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6850053621882346245&q=leon+youngboy&total=13&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

I think this artist is really stirring some grounds I hope every one will give him a chance to right fully shine.
Wikipedia isn't for promotion. I hardly think a Wikipedia article should give someone a chance to shine. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Music Nation competition is a send your CD in and it's judged website. It's not a major competition and is ostensibly an advertising medium for independent artists. MySpace and Google Video are not recognised as WP:RS. to paraphrase J-Stan, if Wikipedia is needed for anyone to "shine" then they aren't notable enough to be in Wikipedia. WP is not a venue to try to publicise someone trying to rebuild a career. ---- WebHamster 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you, WebHamster; I always enjoy getting paraphrased :) I do want to wait until the sources are provided, merely to give the benefit of the doubt. If the sources aren't provided soon, I'll go back to delete. Till then, I'm neutral. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you gentleman need to refer to these articles from these major newspaper, It's what drew me to this artist and It fulfills the requirement of wikepedia rules, if a newspaper is not trustworthy it's saying your doctor's note is no good for being absent from work, thanks for strighten me out there, I was going astray.
Take a look at the Hoy newspaper article dated January 13,2006 page 30
Take a look at the Chinese World Journal dated November 29, 2005 page E3 Take a look at El Diario article dated May 11 2005 page34 Take a look at The Sino American Times dated Dec. 16, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answer8 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys guess what, I found another article check this one out:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.skylinemonthly.com/showInfo_gb.asp%3Fid%3D1416%26moduleid%3D0000700004%26title%3D%25E6%259D%25B0%25E5%2587%25BA%25E5%258D%258E%25E4%25BA%25BA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dleonyoungboy%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN--Answer8 (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys me again, how do I copy a article that I have that is on Adobe so that I can paste it here? I am having trouble in that area.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.187.194 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi me again I think I finally figured it out

Here's the article with the link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/HOY_FRI_P30_copy_1.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answer8 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi guys I found another link http://www.aaiff.org/2007/films/film_detail.php?i=210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Answer8 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J-ſtan and Webhamster and CacnuckNothing at Google news 21 Unique Google Hits Note is made of Webhamsters's comment from WebHamster 20:47, 20 November 2007. Allmusic page has nothing. New York Times has nothing. I see no proof of assertions in the article. Wikipedia has nothing to do with a young artist shining. It is an encyclopedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Answer 8 Please format your edits by placing *'''Comment''' at the start of your remarks. and by signing your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:43, 22 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. CitiCat ♫ 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keese[edit]

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

That's right, the little bats from the Legend of Zelda series have this massive collection of original research and in-universe plot summary. The article is not notable and entirely duplicative with the Zelda game articles, or even the many articles that deal with characters and enemies from the series. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI technology of Command & Conquer[edit]

GDI technology of Command & Conquer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagrashtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per reasoning with other nominations. Marasmusine 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning in the other nominations. Jtrainor 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - these articles have been tagged for awhile, so it seems to me that improvement may not be forthcoming. Nevertheless, given the preponderance of reliance on this (and the relevant Nod article) by the parent articles, and other franchise articles in general, thought should be given to hanging onto them for a while longer, or at least merging the contents in with the main GDI or Nod articles. MalikCarr 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing worth merging. Pagrashtak 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning in the other nominations.--Eldarone 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eldarone's reasoning. Peptuck 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It is a long featured article and it has been used for a long time. Also Mikael in the CNC Wiki please make more strategies and Tactics for both RA2 and Generals not just the Tiberium Series.(TougHHead 08:49, 15 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, -- Balloonman (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this nom as a keep---eventhough I disagreed with the consensus to keep. Then I noticed three similar AFD's on similar topics:

Those three AFD's were clear deletes, for valid reasons. I'm relisting this as the logic to delete the other three should be valid here as well. It makes no sense, to me, to keep 1 and delete the other 3. So, I'd go with Delete-- Balloonman (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - As Mikael said, "Wikipedia gets more useless for lore everyday". Amen. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still saying delete as no real-world context / no proper sourcing / no notability. Miremare 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either there is "extensive coverage" of the topic of "GDI technology of Command & Conquer" by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic, or WP:N, WP:RS are not met. If they are not met then either this is non-notable came cruft that has to be deleted, or there is some exception to all of wikipedia's policy that applies to articles that this that I wasn't previously aware of. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FICT. This page is excessively detailed and puts undue weight on the plot aspect of a strategy game. User:Krator (t c) 11:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, move to StrategyWiki: This is unnecessarily detailed, in-universe information that doesn't really help the casual reader understand the essence of the game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. No primary or secondary sources indicates this woudl make a lousy merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:12, 20 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 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faces FC[edit]

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

This football (soccer) club has never played in the top 10 levels of the English league system, which is what the WP football project generally deems notable, and there is no evidence the club has any other particular claim to notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable club. Even if allowed at level 11, the team must be registered in the top division of the appropriate league. Division 1, however, is below the Premier division, so their inclusion is not valid, and they fail the criteria. No other notability factor - they only won one championship, that of the Essex Olympian League (old) Division Three in 2003-04. Ref (chew)(do) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails the basic tests of notability. - fchd (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:15, 20 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 WP:SNOW. Article seems to be well sourced. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¿Por qué no te callas?[edit]

¿Por qué no te callas? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article may not meet the Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary requirements Paintman 22:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly does meet notability criteria, even a ref for 600,000 Google hits, is an internet meme with the protagonists all being highly notable. No evidence that this event will just disappear either as has important political implications as well, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we cannot assume anything about the future of this meme. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undeniably notable. Nom seems politically motivated. Decoratrix (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no reason to think this one is going away, and I'm trying to locate the ringtones for my cell phone now. Further, googling on Por que no te callas Chavez returns 1.8 million hits; "may not" meet "notability is not temporary" is far from being demonstrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With that kind of coverage it would be speculative to assume that the incident will lose its notability. Kablammo (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above, notable phrase. Worst case scenario, it can be merged to the King's article or send it to WikiQuotes.--JForget 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable now, and probably in the future. --Rumping (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable quote, notable event. Morhange (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable diplomatic-political brouhaha, which is certain to have long-term consequences for Spanish-Latin American relations and live on like a ghost in pop culture. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Ogre (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Juan Carlos I: It is impossible to judge whether this statement is temporary right now. Perhaps it would be wise to review this in a month or two. Nonetheless, I don't think this statement deserves its own article.--Burzum (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem with this is thta the main protagonists were Juan Carlos and Chávez, not just Juan Carlos, certainly Chávez has commented considerably more on the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't appear that Burzum appreciates that it's the phrase itself which has become notable in ways that will certainly be permanent. It's very unusual that the "tu" form was used, and even among familiar subjects (for example, parent to child), it would be unusual in Spanish to tell your child to "shut up" (unless it was done in a friendy, joking, chiding way). It's just not done, and certainly not at the diplomatic, royal level. The phrase itself will never be the same, representing the association with a time when a king finally lost patience and told someone off. It's more than a diplomatic incident; it's the use of language in an unprecedented way that makes this particular article notable. (And check eBay; there's a variety of t-shirts already.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prominent uncommon international diplomatic incident. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This promises to be as notable as Tear down this wall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.234.247 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Perenolde[edit]

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

This stubby article doesn't have any notability, demonstrated by its lack of any referencing and its brevity. As such, it is an inuniverse repetition of plot points from the Warcraft game articles, and is entirely duplicative. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notability or context. Decoratrix (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are other articles covering this, it's not important, it's not well put together.
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:38, 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. About the sources, from WP:V: ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be phrasally attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" (emphasis mine) Pigman☿ 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fans4writers[edit]

Fans4writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an interesting one. Doesn't appear to be a notable organization. The four references included in the article are all from blogs. A Google News search comes up with 9 hits, although none seem to be specifically about the organization, but they just have a brief mention of it. Also, a couple of the Google news search results are just comments left on the listed website in response to an article; anybody can add any website they wish to their comments. I tagged it for speedy deletion at first, as it didn't really assert any notability, however that was contested by the SPA creator, I added a reply to the talk page, and removed the speedy notice. -- Rjd0060 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The group does not appear to be notable. There are only 40 members (according to the article). The articles fails WP:RS, as the article cites blogs, therefore the articles fails the significant coverage requirement of WP:N. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article currently states that members come from more than 40 different fandoms (e.g., fans of Joss Whedon, fans of Ron Moore, fans of Deadwood, etc.), not that there are over 40 fans among the members. Last I checked, there were over 350 registered members on their forums, as many in their Facebook group, and over 250 in their Myspace group. (I have no doubt that there's considerable overlap between the three, granted.) Shmuel (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of November 20, up to over 450 members on message boards, and over 76,000 hits to website.... Clg0107 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep - I agree that the page as currently written needs work -- including a need for better references -- but I think it can be brought up to par. I'll be editing it some more. (Full disclosure: I'm friends with one of the group's founders. On the other hand, I am not a member and I don't support the current WGA strike, so I don't anticipate any trouble maintaining NPOV.) Shmuel (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to not be notable. Also seems like a temporary organization. --Glennfcowan (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the blogs that are the references aren't just 'Joe Blow Bolgs From His Basement', but blogs of legitimate news outlets -- just because something exists only in the virtual world shouldn't make it less legit a source, especially in the Wikipedia universe in which we live. Should it? Just wondering 12.155.246.10 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)clg0107[reply]

  • Comment:
    • Ref. #1 - Personal blog by Joss Whedonwho?.
    • Ref. #2 - Personal blog entry by Dave McNarywho?.
    • Ref. #3 - Personal blog entry by David Sarnowho?.
    • Ref. #4 - Another personal blog entry by somebody.
These are not reliable sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, Joss Whedon is the creator of various television series, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and others. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:

References 2-4 are, respectively, from Variety, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, staff writers/columnists/television bloggers/reporters. To wit:

    • Ref. #2 - Dave McNary
    • Title: Los Angeles Reporter
    • Email: [email protected]
    • Dave McNary reports on film (Paramount Studios), labor and legislative issues for Variety. McNary has worked for Variety since 1999. He covered show business previously for the Los Angeles Daily News and United Press International (per Variety.com)
    • Ref. #3 - David Sarno
    • David Sarno, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, [email protected] (per LATimes.com)
    • Ref. #4 - Maureen Ryan (will edit original citation to include her name)
    • I'm the television critic at the Chicago Tribune.
    • My email address is [email protected]. (per ChicagoTribune.com)

Is it necessary to footnote the footnotes?? 12.155.246.10 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)clg0107[reply]

Comment: Yes. Their personal blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: But, how are these 'personal' blogs?? -- They are the blogs that cover news for the authors' respective employers, ergo, they are bloggers for Variety.com, LATimes.com and ChicagoTribune.com. They are earning their paychecks with the stories they cover here, and wearing their hats as correspondents as they do so, no differently than a columnist or reporter in the paper editions of these publications. I would only say that these are 'personal' blogs if it was being done on their own time, on their own Blogspot or LJ accounts, on their own equipment. Which is not what these are...not trying to be difficult, but again, these aren't just random people nattering on in cyber-space...they are entertainment reporters pursuing their vocation. Clg0107 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. Definitely needs better sources, which do exist and are reliable, they're just not noted here. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep - This article documents an important, and previously really unprecedented, response amongst the general public in studio affairs; better footnotes should be obtained, better sources do exist, but the notability should not be in dispute. Transcendentalstate (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Reliable sources are needed, not blogs. Blogs sometimes tend to be opinionated, which is not how we work. The article now looks like something about a bunch of fanboys handing out pizza. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Those blasting the references because they're blogs are doing strawman argument in reverse: because *you* did not do due diligence on the sources does not mean they're not valid reliable sources. I really think -- especially after seeing the fracas over the bio page for xkcd comic artist Randall Munroe -- that the notability criterion has to be amended to make clear that to be notable enough for Wikipedia does *not* require that you be notable enough to break 20% recognition in a mall walk-by survey. This is notable, for precisely the reasons that Trancendental notes above. Yes, the article needs to be tagged... but for tone, not for notability. --Baylink (talk) 04:57, 22 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. Balloonman (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kremlings[edit]

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

This article has no sourcing, written in an in-universe way that tries to duplicate the Donkey Kong game articles. It has no notability, and as such is just a bunch of original research. If this isn't a violation of "Wikipedia isn't a fan site", than there is no such thing. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:NOT#INFO. The article is an indiscriminate collection of video game characters. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only duplicates material elsewhere in this encyclopedia, but is non notable drivel. Decoratrix (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the appropriate Donkey Kong (perhaps the main game article itself) related article, this should at least be mentionned somewhere, but perhaps not in an individual article, which would be more appropriate in the Wikia (if there is one).JForget 02:36, 24 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) 08:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varian Wrynn[edit]

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

Non-notable character, has no hope of sourcing and critical commentary, and is just a regurgitation of plot points, in an in-universe way, from Warcraft games.

  • Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. The article does not meet the notability requirements, and Wikipedia is not a plot directory. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No context and no notability. Decoratrix (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 15:50, 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 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast[edit]

Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast Episode Listings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable podcast. There is no independent coverage offered in the article to establish notability and none, from reliable sources, appears to exist. The article reads as spam and when taken with the main editors constant adding of what's coming up in the next show it appears to be a promotional piece. Of the 'references offered, one makes no mention of the subject, the other is a trivial mention that this podcast is advertised in another podcast Nuttah68 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this artical is as notable as either of the following, Doctor Who: DWO Whocast and Doctor Who: Podshock. Although I have taken into account many of the things you have said and have edited the page accordingly, we'll see who else has anything to say on the matter, if not we'll keep the page as it is.--Wiggstar69 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my own podcast and it has over 1100 listerers every week. I dont understand why a useful resource like this should remove an entry? do they need to sign something. its the 3rd most popular podcast on doctor who on itunes in the world! [email protected]
  • Delete entertaining though this relatively new podcast is, the article does not provide any verifiable sources to check its claimed notability - "highly ranked on Itunes" is not sufficient. ---- The Missing Hour (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails requirements of WP:WEB and WP:N. Also, the article is leaning a bit towards WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a vehicle in which to promote podcasts with little independent coverage from reliable sources WP:RS. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:50, 16 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, -- Balloonman (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I realise that having no sources from pages outside of promotional pages for the podcast doesn't help the artical keep its current position, although I must stress that I beleive if we can find outside proof that this podcast has gained large popularity in a very short period of time it could still be valid. For example looking for official reports given to the creater of the podcast giving his listenership figures, this is if relying on Itunes isn't enough. I have made recent edits to prevent the artical becoming an advert or spam (following WP:SPAM) and will take any suggestions to continue this trend. unsigned comment byWiggstar69
Any changable problems to this page I will make sure I follow to the letter.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works, received a well-known award, nor is distributed independently of the creators throuh a repected medium: does not meet WP:WEB at this time. Does not meet proposed WP:PODCAST criteria either. If article is deleted, this should not stop a notable, well referenced article being written in the future, if later on the podcast merits inclusion. --Breno talk 11:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast Episode Listings to this AfD as it's essentially a sub article of this one. Contested prod from separate review. --Breno talk 11:50, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest troll[edit]

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

Fictional character with no notability, only appears in Warcraft as a minor enemy and has no hope of having anything more than an in-universe article filled with information duplicated from the game articles. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:00, 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 —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marquart (Mark) Ewing Phillips[edit]

Marquart (Mark) Ewing Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

9 months and notability still not met Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 22:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article fails WP:N because it fails WP:RS - the sources provided are not independent of the subject. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is unlikely that any credible independent sources exist to verify content. --Stormbay (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete has published two books... but they are weak sources for asserting his notability.Balloonman (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Fairly feeble notability claim and unimpressive sources, as already noted. Tim Ross·talk 22:29, 20 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Blystone[edit]

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

Contested speedy. A journalist making no claim to notability, only reference is one based on his genealogogy. Fails WP:BIO -- Nuttah68 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if there was more reliable sources, it would be a keep, but there isn't Ctjf83 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence I'm going to look for some sources tonight... nothing yet. It's tough... he's a reporter, so his name is all over the place on articles he has written. But they aren't about him. :). -- Swerdnaneb 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant violation of WP:BIO. No apparent notability that satisfies WP:N. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot by him, but not about him... and none of the things by him appear to make him notable. Eg I couldn't find anything where he broke a MAJOR news story.Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ifffy! - After all, we have an article on just about every sports player in the known universe! Stepp-Wulf (talk) 02:06, 20 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 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Finland[edit]

List of schools in Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - we have categories for schools, this would be a list of mostly non-notable schools, nursery schools, driving schools, elementary schools, vocational schools, sunday schools -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's nothing even there. I would support a future version with more than just one blue link and one red link, as long as it rose above WP:LISTCRUFT, but as it is, it's completely worthless. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not a directoryBalloonman (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure the nomination has sufficiently explained itself. Just because the schools are not individually notable does not mean that a list could not be. I'm not familiar enough with the relevant policy on lists to decide this one. Plus, a general article might keep down the number of articles on nn schools... what does everyone say? CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep See list of schools in Florida, List of schools in Alabama, List of schools in Derbyshire. This is a country! QED. Amended to strong in the light of talk's work Victuallers (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors can organize this list in ways that a category cannot be organized, and a start has been made on that already. Noroton (Noroton) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added significantly to the list, including a link to the category that includes 73 other "Schools in" lists by country. This list has a number of Finnish spellings and translated titles, which is something useful that a category could not provide. It also has a redlink, which a category could not provide but which is the type of listing that might be useful hereNoroton (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this list is ever any where near complete then it would have way too many entries to be practical or navigable. It's inclusion criteria is not specified - as menitoned above it could include entries for any cooking school, fly-fishing school or snow-skiing school in Finland.Garrie 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of using Category:Schools in Finland and subcategories; ensure that list content is reflected in category prior to deletion—I can sympathize with the request that we consider both red-link (yet to be written) school articles and accommodation for alternative spellings that categories have difficulty fulfilling. However, red-link school articles can be referred to in the city/district article and alternative spellings can be addressed by redirects that are categorized so as to appear alongside main article titles. I believe that arguments for deletion of the list based on 'it will be too long', 'it will be incomplete', 'it will attract school-cruft' and 'its scope is ill-defined' are none of them valid in the present context. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:12, 24 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. Balloonman (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical differences in Kenyan English[edit]

Lexical differences in Kenyan English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I tagged this with unencyclopaedic on the 8th, and left a note for the author. Hasn't been updated since, so I thought I'd bring it here instead. As I wrote on the talk page, this article might fail WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, specifically section 2. However, most of this appears to be original research with no reliable sources to back it up. ARendedWinter 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, unencyclopedic and original research. -- Julius Sahara (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic Ctjf83 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Somewhere more appropriate, seems article doesn't belong at Wikipedia, but it might fit at one of the sister projects. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have to consider WP:BIAS when evaluating an article about another culture. However, it looks like about 90 percent of the words are not unique to Kenya. The vast majority of these are the "English English" that is spoken in Britain (chips, flat, lift, etc.). Lists of this type are less of a dictionary, and more of an insight into the culture of another nation (such as "thorn in my eye" being a euphemism for an ugly person)). I don't see that anyone would look up words here. Most people who would read this article would probably be unaware of words like "matatu" or "kamuti" beforehand. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As the authour of the article, I am following the format found on some other 'lexical differences' pages on wikipedia and just added the Kenyan variants with some originals included as well. Some of these words are likely to be unlknown beforehand simply because Kenya is a relatively small country and as such only people from Kenya or with an interest in Kenya will be looking at the materials. What if anything should I change to comply with the Wiki standards? Wairimu (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Wakuria[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising, no prejudice to reposting if the article is written in a neutral tone and provides sources. -- NawlinWiki (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Haber[edit]

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

Moved from speedy since there is at least some coverage from news (eg), but article still appears to fail WP:BIO. -- TeaDrinker (talk) 21:05, 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. Pigman☿ 07:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Economic Growth[edit]

Future Economic Growth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Blanked a couple of times by an anon claiming that it's all WP:OR. Looks quite likely to me as well. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more history of this can be seen in the Economy of India article, where this was added as a subsection in July, subject to some revert warring there, until it was finally split out into it's own article in early October by the same user who added it to the India Econ page in the first place. - -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Would that the average article on wikipedia were this well written, sourced and encyclopedic. Keep and continue to source more thoroughly. A renaming could be in order, since the present title is very broad. Change to something like Economic forecasts of major nations. Decoratrix (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete True that the language and exposition are good. The contents are, however, original research. It is one person's projections of growth based on a model he/she has developed. Established investment research firms like Goldman Sachs are not aware of the model, as the very first para of the article states.

While attempts to develop new economic models are laudable, they should be done in the appropriate forums. Wikipedia can include only published research material. That was the reason this section was removed from its previous location on Wikipedia. The reason still holds. Of all the reference links, only one link substantiates the central argument of the article - an economic model which predicts a different outcome for the economic growth of India, China and the US than the one predicted by the Goldman Sachs report: 

  4. "The Future of Space Exploration in the Age of New Giants. Gunjan Gupta.

This link is a slideshow by the same person who authored this page, hosted on a personal website. That does not constitute published research. The economic growth model explained in this article has been used only by this author; has never been published in any economic report, dissertation, magazine and the like; and has not been picked up by any financial institution. As such, it falls under the category of 'original research'.

ajoykt

  • Delete this is clearly a piece of OR... reads like a college paper.Balloonman (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR essay. CitiCat ♫ 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gunjankg

However the content in the Wiki page is complete by itself and does not require the presentation to be understood. It is based on raw data for various countries/years mentioned. Links need to be added for the same and I will be adding references over time- references to the data is easy to come by. None of the projections in the article are based on any non-obvious facts- and are simply a discussion about various ways in which future economic growth can be measured. References are widely avaiable for economic growth based on PPP and I will be adding the same too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.120.104 (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ajoykt Linucon is a Linux expo/Science fiction exposition. A presentation there cannot be the basis for an article on economic growth projections. The content may not require the presentation to be understood. But it does require a reference to published research to be not OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajoykt (talk • contribs) 08:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market entry[edit]

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

This is original research by the author of one of the cited references, who is also the creator of the article. It may be fixable if rewritten. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow up Alright, I've done some wikification. Doesn't look quite so horrifying right now. I'll add it to my watch list and do some serious sourcing and clean up if I ever have time(and it isn't deleted). i kan reed (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. Can you find a better source than quickmba.com? That looks like spam masquerading as a source. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty notable. would be nice to have a better sourcing. Decoratrix (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A definitely notable subject, and Ikanreed has volunteered to clean up. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable.Balloonman (talk) 07:56, 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 per WP:SNOW. - BanyanTree 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michael Hoffman[edit]

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

Probably speedy worthy as nonsense, but brought it here just in-case. Plain hoax. The name of this person doesn't seem right for someone supposedly born in 2nd Century Greece. I'm unfamiliar with calculations of heavenly bodies, but repeated google searches return nothing vaguely similiar to what is written here. Finally, the village doesn't seem to exist. ARendedWinter 20:16, 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 deleted by User:MoRsE (A7). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 20:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic bat[edit]

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

Looks non-notable, but has a reference. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:06, 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. Hut 8.5 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwell[edit]

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

This article has zero notability outside of the Warcraft articles which already cover their gameplay mechanics. It won't improve, and doesn't need its own article, since it is duplicative of information already listed in the respective game articles. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete How non notable can it get? Decoratrix (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete totally in universe with no real out of universe applicability.Balloonman (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No out-of universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagrashtak 21:49, 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SyncTERM[edit]

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

SyncTERM fails to meet two criteria for inclusion. It is not notable and it does not belong in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a directory) This account has been created pretty much for the sole purpose of creating this discussion.

Sure - go ahead and delete the program. -- Tedickey (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. All ghits seem to be download sites and forums. Could probably be speedy because there is no indication of importance/significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • prod was reverted which, as I understand it, means it needs to go though AfD --Real Deuce (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a speedy candidate as A7 requires that the article be about "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content"Balloonman (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I want to point out that the editor who started the AfD is the actual author of the software this article is about. So he is obviously biased and WP:COI applies, although in this example in a very weird way. I still don't understand yet why he is so anxious to get the reference to his own creation wiped from Wikipedia. It started with removing content from the main article, which caused the article to lose a substantial amount of its content diff. He also stated his disapproval at the articles talk page. He even mentioned it on his site, which does now 301 redirects to this article here at Wikipedia. I rebuild the article to some extend, just to see again that it has been severely altered and that not to the better in my honest opinion diff. Under normal circumstances show people a positive response if they or something they were part of gets an article at Wikipedia, unless of course if the article puts things in a different light than they would like it. This is not the case here. It is/was a positive article. I am still trying to find out what the reason is for Stephen Hurd to go through all this length to get the article about his software application wiped off from Wikipedia. He did not create the article, I did that. He states that his own product is not notable to be mentioned anywhere, but I created the article because I have the complete opposite believe. I think that it is noteworthy. Why? Because there are not many terminal emulation or terminal software out there that is available for virtually every computer platform, supports virtually every platform that ever had a bulletin board software available and somebody who ran a bulletin board system on that platform, including IBM PCs with MS DOS, 8-Bit Atari and Commodore home computers, mainframes that used VT100 emulation. On top of that is the software also freeware with no strings attached. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just making a few points here: I'm not anxious to get references removed, just articles. I've restored the site as it was so people can refer to it. While it is flattering to have your work be notable enough to get a Wikipedia article, this particular work is not. There is no possible reason for this article to be in an encyclopedia. Ask yourself what a user is supposed to take away from the article, then ask yourself is the article is not an ad. (nit) It's not freeware, if anything it is GPL. --Real Deuce (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm sure there are loads of reasons why this is a wonderful piece of software, but that doesn't make it notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. For that you need to provide verifiable independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please make sure that you don't confuse notable with popular. I think that it is notable for the fact that it is the only program I ever heard of that allows you to connect to virtually any BBS platform in existence and that from virtually any desktop platform that is used today. The fact that is free is IMO not relevant for this debate. I would have created the article for it, even if it would be a commercial product. However, we would almost certainly not have this discussion right now, if it would be commercial, because the creator of the software wouldn't be here to get the entry deleted. We would more likely have a discussion about the intend of the article and whether or not it is an attempt to put an "Ad" up on Wikipedia. Since there is no commercial intend behind it, can we luckily just concentrate on the aspect of "notability". --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please don't confuse notable as a general concept with notable as a specific criterion of Wikipedia, which is defined here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response We are on the same page I believe. I mentioned already that I was not able to find the source anymore that made me aware of the software. However, this does not mean that there is none. There is also no reason for me to make something up, since I have no ties to the software or the people that created it whatsoever. Because of this did the article remain a stub. Until the needed sources were rediscovered (online or offline) does the software stub has to carry itself based on just the list of properties that are making up the extra ordinary characteristics for this software. Those properties are verifiable by downloading the free software and installing it. I hope this makes sense. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Just because an ad is for free software doesn't make it any less of an ad. --Real Deuce (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Taking your implied definition of what an ad is, every mention of anything would be considered an "ad". This is not the intended meaning of the term "ad" within the context it was used in this discussion. There is no need to get further off topic. My statement is leading, please ignore it. For clarification, I meant to say that commercial intent is not a factor that needs to be considered for this debate, because it does virtually not exist or is marginable and thus irrelevant.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment I can't remember how I learned about the software to use it as verification. It was probably during my research for the article to ASCII art. Because of that did I create the entry at Wikipedia as "stub" an not as a full article yet. I hoped that other editors would come and help and not that the author comes to get the entry removed. I was not able to find the reference that made me aware of the existance of the program in Google anymore, but that does not surprise me. I found references for this kind of stuff for other articles (such as PCBoard) burried "miles deep" in old text files and BBS email log archives. Those text references pointed some times to vital publications in old print media that are not available in digital format on the internet (yet), but are nevertheless valid references to be used in an encyclopedia --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It is my opinion that most of those entries do not belong either. While they should be mentioned in an article on the subject as a whole, most of the BBS releated software articles should not exist. Pointing out that other articles should be deleted for the same reason isn't an argument to keep the SyncTERM article. --Real Deuce (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are very little articles to things that are associated to the once thriving BBS era. One article can't cover the whole subject. A six hours documentary wasn't able to do it either. The definition of an encyclopedia is: "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" (from Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). Bulletin board systems and everything that came with it are not an "evolutionary dead end" that could be left out from a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are things that lead to BBS's and things that derived from it. Leaving it out would create a gap that can not be filled by derivatives. People would have to guess and speculate in the future about what happened and how things came into being if no information to the subject are available anymore. Could it be that your discontent has to do with the bulletin board system subject in general? It seems like you would prefer that this subject will be forgotten entirely, which also would also include your own creation as a side effect of this. I am only guessing, because I am still puzzled by your actions. Correct me, if I am incorrect and feel free to comment on it, if there is some truth to it. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is with SyncTERM as an important enough piece of BBS knowledge to warrant an article which only covers "knowledge of SyncTERM"... I can't think of any subject that would have a gap in it if SyncTERM was left out. The rest of this should probably go to my talk page —Preceding comment was added at 09:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on the discussion here am I changing my vote from Keep to Merge as a paragraph into the article about Synchronet instead. SyncTerm might not warrant to have its own article, but it is notable to the subject matter. It is a project that derived from Syncronet, so it would be the logical place to include the SyncTerm program. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree I'm not sure what the difference between "merge" and "delete" are in this context (The SyncTERM article goes away, and the Synchronet article stays), but a mention of Synchronet sub projects in the Synchronet article does make sense to me. --Real Deuce (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info I added the paragraph about SyncTerm to the artile about Synchronet and left a not on the articles talk page. This means that this article to [[SyncTERM] could be deleted. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shanxy and Noto Show[edit]

The Shanxy and Noto Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability via significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:N. Google returns zero hits outside of Wikipedia and mirrors making it extremely unlikely notability can be established or any claims in the article can be verified. -- Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A student radio programme is unlikely to be notable, and the article doesn't give any indication that this one is. About half the article seems to consist of in-jokes. -- EALacey (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newcastle Student Radio says it allBalloonman (talk) 08:12, 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. WP:SNOW case. PeaceNT (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth 2030[edit]

Duluth 2030 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short (one sentence), not much information, no references, and does not attempt to assert notability. Original author may have a conflict of interest. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It might be notable on the Duluth, Georgia page, but definitely doesn't need its own page Ctjf83 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can imagine the project this article refers to having some significance at some point, but for now, a one-sentence reference in the city's article is sufficient. Article author's COI is potential problem. -- MKoltnow (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The city's website confirms that the plan is being developed, but doesn't suggest there's much that can be written about it yet. The plan may turn out to be notable further down the line, but even then it would be better to start with a section in Duluth, Georgia and split if it became long enough. -- EALacey (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I (briefly) made it a redirect, but I mistook to AFD tag as a PROD tag. —ScouterSig 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until there's some sort of information about it, it doesn't seem like it's notable. I am impressed though. That page has the highest templates to content ratio I've ever seen. mattbuck (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-empty}}. --Calton | Talk 13:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried that before I brought the discussion here, but it was rejected. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:54, 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 nom withdrawn. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Real Ghostbusters episodes[edit]

The Real Ghostbusters Television show, which I love, is notable and will be a great article, but this list of episodes is unneeded. Lists are supposed to function as a directory to other articles, but only one episode of the series is (barely) notable enough to have its own article. This should be redirected to the Real Ghostbusters article. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Where does it say that articles "are supposed to function as a directory to other articles"? Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured Lists, and you will find a couple of episode lists that don't link to individual episode articles. I am just glad that this is not one of the TV shows where dozens of nn episode articles need to be merged into a list. For what it's worth, I even regard episode lists as the one kind of article that doesn't need to establish its notability (as soon as it has become too long for the main article). – sgeureka t•c 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that for me, I withdraw my nomination. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 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. Article is in a different and better condition now than it was when nominated. (Non admin closure). —Qst 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golem (band)[edit]

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

Nothing special. No links. -- Metal Head (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was just about to hit delete per CSD:A7 but it's borderline. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 5 minutes searching found plenty of reviews on metal sites. The Metal Observer [6] and Metal-Rules.com [7] look legit. There are others out there as well.--Nydas(Talk) 22:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added what Nydas linked and a few others. (As far as I can tell, these are sources with editorial oversight and hence reliable, but given the language barrier, I am not 100% sure.) The band has been around a while, has several releases on what seem to be major indie labels and has garnered international attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources out there; those added clearly establish the group as worthy of an article. Chubbles (talk) 20:30, 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 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Saunders[edit]

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

Contested prod. Another young football player who is yet to play a first team game for a club in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:BIO -- Nuttah68 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until he plays for the first team. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree per nom Ctjf83 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not even Northern Ireland can properly source this player it seems. -- Peanut4 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, not having played for Fulham F.C. or any other fully-professional club. Ref (chew)(do) 21:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "If his career were to end tomorrow..." No, this is not a notable sportsman. Fail WP:BIO, has not played in a fully professional league. ---- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no prejudice against recreation if he wins promotion to the first team squad. Qwghlm (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Playing for Fulham reserves isn't notable enough. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:14, 20 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→Ghostbusters --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Shandor[edit]

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

This article has no notability, no references of any kind to establish notability, and is a minor character in the Ghostbusters movie and should be mentioned there, not have its own stubby article. The only references the article has, the references to the location of the movies climax is already in 55 Central Park West so Shandors article is also duplicative. If you want to contest the articles deletion, prove it has references. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is; the Ghostbusters article has a good enough plot description, and doesn't need this additional stuff that is already covered in yet another article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant to my point. You're effectively requesting a merge, not a deletion -- or a redirect without merge, if you think there's already enough info about Ivo in the main Ghostbusters article. Either of those you can take care of by yourself; AfD is the wrong place to bring it up. If you think the merge or redirect may be controversial (and it appears on the talk page that it may), then the proper procedure is WP:RM [[WP:MERGE], not AfD. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not requesting a merger; there is nothing to merge, all relevent information on Ivo Shandor is listed in the Ghostbusters movie article, so this is all duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, if there's nothing to merge, then what you want is a redirect without merge. There is no benefit in actually deleting anything -- the search term "Ivo Shandor" is unlikely to be used for anything else, so there's no cost to keeping it as a redirect. If there were something we didn't want even in the edit history -- say, copyright violations that someone would sue for even if accessible only in the history, or illegal material -- then a delete would make sense for that reason. But as far as I know there's not.
So this is an inappropriate case to bring at AfD. Please consider this in future -- I took a look at your contribution history and it seems to me you bring a lot of these. I haven't looked carefully to see if those are as inappropriate as this one, but it's something to think about. --Trovatore (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we must agree to disagree, because this article should be deleted, plain and simple, not redirected, moved, rewritten, or expanded, but deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to explain what you see as the advantage of not having the redirect? --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no feeling about it one way or the other. If you want to add a redirect after it's deleted, that's fine. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so now you've basically undermined your whole case. We don't delete articles just to remove content from the history, assuming the content is not harmful in some way (say, illegal or libellous or tortious or copyvio). All you had to do was boldly redirect Ivo Shandor to Ghostbusters, and you get the same effect, except for the history, which AfD doesn't care about. Of course you might run into opposition, but that's essentially a content dispute, again not an AfD matter. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just simply state your against the deletion and be done with it, this nomination will run its course because the case for deletion is legitimate and doesn't need to be merged or redirected anywhere. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one else seems to be interested. Probably because they know I'm right -- it was an error on your part to make the nomination in the first place; you should have just boldly redirected, or else made the case for redirection on the article's talk page. Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying it was bad faith or anything like that, just a technical mistake, possibly based on a misunderstanding of AfD, or possibly you just didn't think of it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Trovatore. Searching for a character in a popular movie is not far-fetched which would make the redirect useful. There is nothing so harmful in the history that we need to delete it. Better to keep the archives so that editors can look at it in case something else needs to be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 21 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 00:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains inspired by Batman[edit]

List of villains inspired by Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete this list with only five entries which has remained unsourced since February. Without sources, it violates WP:NOR, even if it weren't a trivial observation unworthy of its own article. Doczilla 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not much of a list, and it's pure OR. •97198 talk 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Delete' Batman! WP:OR, listcruft. -- Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & KAPOW Unsourced article that deals with an unimportant subject matter. --Cyrus Andiron 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because neither crime nor WP:OR pay. ◄Zahakiel► 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Delete-Mobile! per nom.---- WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:LC, etc. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete senseless list. -- JJL (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/unsourced Ctjf83 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-per nom, also baseless should be included for the inclusion of some of the characters. 66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with stronger inclination to Merge - This was apparently created as a CfD result of "Listify". While I think that the page criteria could include every non-superpowered gageteer/martial artist, the actual list appears to closely indentifiable to Batman. So perhaps merging to a Batman related article might be more appropriate. - jc37 (talk) 11:52, 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Whether or not the article should be merged with Ronn Torossian is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


5W Public Relations[edit]

The article on 5W Public Relations blatantly violates Wikipedia policy regarding several issues including NPOV and Wikipedia:Spam. The author of this article, User:Judae1, is an employee of 5W Public Relations and has created the majority of its edits. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages for PR firms nor is it to be abused with self-promotion and advertising. This article qualifies for "Speedy Delete."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Agavtouch (talk • contribs)

Comment - More of the same from the same meatpuppet. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian for arguments on both sides. -- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Juda, your hostile and aggressive attacks in welcoming me to Wikipedia does not conform to Wikipedia community style. Rather than trying "spin" for which you are employed to do at 5W Public Relations and attempting to place new Wikipedia editors on the defensive, you should take it upon yourself to apologize to the Wikipedia community for breaching NPOV and SPAM. If honest and objective, you should also vote to delete this self-promotional article. -- Agavtouch (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fact New York Times, Brash P.R. Guy Grabs Clients, Ink, STEVEN KURUTZ, February 20, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, November 16, 2007 (UTC)
Comment both Judeal and Agavtouch have been warned for edit-warring in connect with this article. -- Michaelbusch (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference better Every sentence is referenced, but some to press releases. The New York Times and other coverage make it notable. I think here you are trying to punish the article for people editing it with a COI, which doesn't make sense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) * This user is in violation of 3RR[reply]
    • Agavtouch, let's hear why a vote to keep this article violates WP:3RR. Feel free to respond, or have one of your sockpuppets handle this one for you. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The NYT article is sufficient, no matter who added it. DGG (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. COI is not a reason to delete. List this on WP:COIN and warn the warring parties with threats of blocks. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One brief NYT article -- predominantly because of the celebrity namedropping -- does not importance make.

--Calton | Talk 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That brief NYT article runs four pages in the Internet version. For comparison Norman Mailer's obituary was 5 Internet pages. Please at least look at the reference, even if you don't read it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NPOV and COI are not article deletion criteria. Remove unsourced material or rewrite. Owen× ☎ 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. It is mentioned in passing in any of the reliable "sources." The article is an abuse of Wikipedia. It is mainly edited by Juda, an employee (which is scummy on its own). Juda knows he has a COI yet he edits the page. This whole thing reeks of an abuse of Wikipedia. Juda and works at the PR firm. He is doing it for publicity for his publicity firm. The irony is sickening. This is obviously spam. Who is going to benefit from reading this article that is written like an advertisement. --Agha Nader (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (repeated from above) The NYT article runs four pages in the Internet version, its not "mentioned in passing". For comparison Norman Mailer's obituary was 5 Internet pages. Please at least look at the reference, even if you don't read it. This AFD is more about conflicting egos, than about notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. The nominator provides clear evidence of lack of NPOV yet it appears that sockpuppets and meatpuppets working for 5W Public Relations ignore these facts and vote keep as they attack Wikipedia policy. This article was an exercise in abuse and I suggest to adms to follow the digital trail here in Wikipedia of those who voted keep as they have created several paid entries for the clients of 5W Public Relations in Wikipedia. Batright (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the article subject in depth, all of which satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. The nominator seems to be unaware of, and have violated at length, his obligations to address issues of prospective notability of articles through edits and other improvements before the mad rush to AfD. the notability of the firm is inarguable. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bad faith nomination as pointed out by User:Alansohn --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced, notability established. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "I am a Senior Vice President of the Government and Corporate Practice at 5W Public Relations" states Juda S. Engelmayer in his Wiki user page, the writer who authored and edited and voted on this article on 5W Public Relations. Do we see anything wrong with this picture? In addition, many of those who have voted Keep here in light of several clear violations of Wikipedia policy including SPAM and NPOV have attacked the nominator rather than address this advertisement for a PR company. If new editors have joined Wikipedia as a result of this and or other AFD's it is a compliment for Wikipedia and her growth. In their desperation to keep this advertisement on Wikipedia these new and senior editors should not become the target of a professional, paid, discredit campaign against them by employees of 5W Public Relations. We must ask ourselves one question. Has Wikipedia become a Yellow Pages for which PR firms may arrogantly promote themselves in their own words and then use spin tactics to retain the article or is the Wikipedia community responsible for improving the standards of quality information based on objective and accountable fact? Batright (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thats because Juda S. Engelmayer makes clear his relationship to the company. A conflict of interest, is only a reason to be extra careful in reviewing an article, as with Jimmy Wales editing his own Wikipedia entry. You on the other hand are one of multiple accounts created just to nominate this article for deletion, and vote for the deletion. You are the disruptive one, trying to eliminate an article that meets both notability and verifiability. We know Juda S. Engelmayer and his story, what is yours? What are your reasons for trying so hard to delete it? What are your ulterior motives? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) * This user is in violation of 3RR[reply]
  • Keep, and incidentally merge the article on its boss into it. I do wonder why the article takes the NY Post and "Fox News" seriously, though. Still, oddities like this can be cleared up, in an article on a company that (rather absurdly) seems notable. (Yes, companies will pay money for spin, and this company sells spin. This fact may be sad and it may be hilarious, but it's a verifiable fact all the same.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In addition to violating SPAM, 3RR and NPOV policy on this article, 5W Public Relations has been paid to author and has spammed other articles in Wikipedia including: Joe Francis and several others. Just connect many of the users on this page who have voted Keep and their history of "contributions." These "contributions" match clients listed on 5W Public Relations client page. 5W Public Relations is an established and documented spammer on Wikipedia Agavtouch (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with User:Agavtouch. SPAM, NPOV and 3RR documented violations committed by 5W Public Relations for themselves and their clientele on Wikipedia. This should have been a Speedy Delete. Heathspic (talk) 16:52, 21 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. east.718 at 07:20, November 22, 2007

Victory Road (Pokemon)[edit]

Victory Road (Pokemon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a location in a video game, with no assertion of nobility. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We have an article on every Pokemon. No doubt we should have an article on every Pokemon location too. Delete per nom.---- WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in-game location. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing on this topic that couldn't be fully addressed in a less-specific article. johnpseudo 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability asserted at all, no sources or references, nothing at all really. Probably speediable under CSD:A7, to be honest. ELIMINATORJR 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this really is not Pokewiki. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a reduced version with one of the many Pokemon lists, probably Pokémon regions.--Nydas(Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notabilty other than Pokemon This is a Secret account 23:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable piece of gamecruft. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails, well any sensible test.--Docg 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All useful information is already included in Kanto (Pokémon) and Hoenn. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Pokémon game mechanics Will (talk) 00:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Christianson[edit]

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

Non-notable podcaster, no sources. -- Corvus cornix (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - He is mentioned in Macworld. There are other "Adam Christianson" mentions, but they may not be our guy. For example, there is an October 2004 news report that mentions "Two doors down, Adam Christianson recalls being the first in his immediate neighborhood to put up a political sign. It was for Kerry." and a November 2001 news report that mentions "For a different assignment, senior Adam Christianson created a memorial for the Sept. 11 attacks, featuring footage of the attacks and quotes by President Bush." I don't know if these are podcaster Adam Christianson. Then there is Sheriff Adam Christianson who has raised a lot of ruckus. -- Jreferee t/c 19:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless accurate, reliable sources are found to verify notability claims. Keeper | 76 22:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now I would be willing to keep is some claims of notability are found, though. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:19, 20 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. I'm not going to close this as keep, because although there is no consensus to delete, there is also no consensus that the articles so listed should be kept in their present form. Whilst not deleting is equal to keep, at times a keep result can be taken to mean that an article or group of articles should be kept as is, and I am using my discretion to note that there is no consensus within this debate on which to base such an opinion. The argument with most merit in this debate has been that of merging. I would suggest that interested parties work together to achieve a consensus on the best way to present that information best fitting with our purpose that is contained within these articles, as no consensus to delete it has formed as yet. See WP:MERGE for more details. Hiding T 15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrial Book[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Zoe Washburne
Hoban Washburne
Inara Serra
Jayne Cobb
Kaylee Frye
Simon Tam

Non notable characters from a tv series that was cancelled after one season and a film which was a box office bomb. There are no independant secondary sources and the bulk of the articles is original research and probable fancruft. WP:FICT states that all articles on fictional topics should be contain real world information and WP:WAF says that articles should be based around this information. There is no real world information that exists for any of these characters (that is given in the article or I can find on the internet). -- Guest9999 (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-leaving aside the reference to the film as a box office bomb, which is POV, it can be factually stated that both film and television series were critical successes. Althought he articles could use better sources, a look at them indicates a lack of WP:OR and everything in them could be sourced to the published scripts, novelization, comics, or the non-fiction essays dealing with the series published in the two volumes Finding Serenity and Serenity Found.-- Shsilver (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The movie made less money at the box office than it cost to make (about $39,000,000 compared to about $40,000,000) considering that theatres take a significant proportion of that (~40% ?) and the amount of money spent on publicity and advertising it is likely that the studio suffered a significant loss. That to me indicates that the movie "bombed" at the box office. Admittedly though it is quite a POV statement and should not detract from the major notability concerns in the article. There are no third party, reliable sources given. -- Guest9999 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's unfortunately correct: none of those articles make any cited use of Finding Serenity. Can somebody please add material? I have no idea which box my copy is in.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should have asked for citations rather than AfD. AfD when a call for citations would work better is an inherently hostile. If a call for citations goes unheeded, then an AfD might be called for.Shsilver (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all (with trimmed plot) into Characters of Firefly until someone has found and added significant amounts of reliable third-party information to establish individual notabilty. As this show has been cancelled several years now without having these articles establish their notability, it is unlikely that somehow editors will just start working on the articles. I'm open to recreation of articles when the nom's concerns are addressed. (Just started rewatching the show on DVD.) – sgeureka t•c 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Clean or Merge without prejudice. These articles could easily be expanded and tidied to include more good/real-world information. The series, film, and characters are highly notable, as the show was actually highly successful and popular, despite what the nominator would have you believe. ---- Cheeser1 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not know how you can call a show that was cancelled after 1 season "highly successful"? [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Yeah, well maybe you should read up on the show a little bit. We have a whole article about it. The fact that you don't like it or that you don't consider it successful is totally irrelevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the show and will admit that in terms of forming a small core of very dedicated fans it was successful. However in terms of broader appeal, longevity and comercial viability it was a failure - hence why it was cancelled after one season and not picked up by any other network and hence why the movie was also a comercial failure - losing millions of dollars for the studio. I was not saying anything about the quality or otherwise of the show. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • So once again, why is your negative opinion of this show in any way relevant? It isn't. On the other hand, it's widespread success, perhaps not at the hands of Fox but otherwise, has been documented and is well known. It seems you feel the need to respond to every single "keep" but you don't, so stop, especially when it's simply to reiterate your irrelevant reason for nominating this article for deletion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Series is quite notable, despite its short lifespan, and the characters merit individual articles (and the movie, which opened at #2 according to its entry, was not by any stretch a "box office bomb"). ◄Zahakiel► 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notability of the series and the films is not under discussion here. But as Notability is not automatically inherited and these articles don't establish their subjects' notability at all, the articles need better arguments to be kept as separate entities. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Hence my follow-up statement, "and the characters merit individual articles." Another editor contributing to this discussion has already demonstrated that the individual articles here are sourceable, thus this is a matter for cleanup and not deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How do they merit individual articles? What has been shown by now is that these characters exist and deserve mention, but not that they deserve individual articles. Until significant real-world coverage by third-party sources has been shown, none of these characters are considered notable enough to "deserve" a separate article. (This addresses all keep votes based on "but they're notable", not you in particular.) – sgeureka t•c 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think they should have mention, then proposing a merger is the proper course, not an AfD. I do think that (as per the sourcing indicated by the user below) each of these articles can be stand-alone entries, but I'd not oppose merging at least some of them for now. ◄Zahakiel► 21:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already !voted merge. And I would also have prefered the {{merge}} way instead of going to AfD, but what's done is done, and the AfD route may bring results faster. These articles also have enough fan backing to not be deleted, so no worries on my side that these characters will receive the coverage they deserve by wiki guidelines and policies. – sgeureka t•c 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, I had you mistaken for the nominator for some reason. ◄Zahakiel► 14:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Series is notable, these are all main characters in the series, and there's independent coverage in Finding Serenity., off the top of my head. Borders on bad-faith nom here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just added ref to scholarly article to Inara Serra.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also this article, but I don't have easy access to it to see how much it talks about the individual characters. Anybody else? --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Rowley, C. (2007) ‘Firefly/Serenity: Gendered Space and Gendered Bodies,’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(2), pp. 318-325.[reply]
  • Keep all - Notability of series, plus attendant spin-offs (film, graphic novel, etc.). Rationale for deletion is largely POV. -- Alcarillo (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one article, not really notable on their own. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one article. As much as it pains to say it, none of these characters are culturally significant enough to warrant their own article. -- The Wookieepedian (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're going to find enough material sourcing Inara: the others, maybe not. I see the nom didn't include Mal and River, so he obviously did his homework: I withdraw my "possible bad-faith" comment above.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Firefly (TV series)#Main characters and Serenity (film)#Cast. I'm a flan, but the characters are unfortunately not yet notable enough for individual encyclopedia articles (maybe after season 7 of Firefly (will too!)). I just referenced Kaylee's full name and nickname to 3 books and 1 DVD, so the sources exist, but they're about the show and movie, not the character. -- Jeandré, 2007-11-16t23:49z
  • Keep Series is well known, and all ensemble characters are notable. Article is harmless. I would encourage more "real world" tie-in, but would vote inclusion first. See precedent discussion on Diagon Alley from Harry Potter. Similar mass deletion request of fictional element that also resulted in a "keep" and "merge" decision.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citing prior precedent is a far cry from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let's try to play fair here. The !vote was clearly explained as an inclusionist !vote, with emphasis on possible improvement. If you're going to cite WP:ITSA you might want to notice that it applies to "delete votes" too - I seem to have noticed you passing some pretty undue judgment on the series, and you appear to have decided that these articles are and always will be fancruft - something that I would seriously doubt since the consensus here is basically keep or merge. So you know, if you're going to call somebody out on their comments reading like WP:ATA, you might want to make sure your nomination doesn't read like "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I assume it has no sources or possible room for improvement/merging." --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I agree I did bog down the nomination with irelevant information (the tv show's and movie's lack of poularity) but I still feel the main point - which has still not really been adequately addressed - that the articles' lack any kind of reliable, independant sourcing was made clear. The reason I mentioned the other stuff was that in previous nominations people have tried to give the popularity of a series as evidence of notability of its characters (e.g. Harry Potter 300,000,000 books sold) and I thought by showing that the series had not been popular (canceled aftre 1 season, box office flop) those arguements might not be made. [[Guest9999 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Reply Your link to "arguments to avoid" seems to cover your nomination as well WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:BIG, WP:JNN, etc. But, truly, I fail to see the advantage to WP to remove a well written article of a character that a user may be looking for information on. Is the article on Jayne Cobb (Firefly) getting in the way of Jayne Cobb (cricket player)? Please explain again how deleting this article will ease Wikipedia's usability to the user. Perhaps there is a guideline or essay...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs)
  • In Guest9999's defense, he also used WP:NN and WP:FICT (notability guidelines), WP:OR (policy) and WP:WAF (MOS). The articles clearly violate all four of them (Guest9999 forgot to cite WP:NOT#PLOT). Not much has changed about the articles' state since the AfD opened, so his assertions still seem true. – sgeureka t•c 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't just quote policies as is implied by WP:JUSTAPOLICY I explained why I felt they were in violation of the polcies - namely that there was no real world information and no secondary sources. I would also say that I did not say it was just not notable as I gave both reasons and policies to explain my position. I am sorry if I did muddy the water by making arguements that were essentially WP:BIG they were largely meant to be a bit of background for people who didn't know much about the subject and had no place in this AfD nomination. I apologise. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Merge with trimmed plot details, while maintaining all the character information, to List of major characters from Firefly or similar. Much as I do love Firefly I don't think it's particularly necessary to have articles for every major character, particularly as much of the plot details overlap due to the relatively small number of episodes. A more readable article could probably be produced by combining them. If the series and/or movies were still likely to be continued I would say individual character articles could be justified easily enough, but I just don't think there's enough verifiable, notable information to really warrant it. I do agree that Mal and River probably do warrant independent articles, I agree with the nominator's decision not to include them in this. ~ Mazca (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I'm a fan that came to the series after the movie. The individual character pages were very helpful. I just think that if they were merged onto one single page, these pages would be forced to cut information that I found useful. Please keep them around.
  • Strong Keep for each of these articles. There are additional sources that could be used to improve these articles and they could stand a bit of rewriting but the solution is to improve them, not to delete them. With the continued expansion of the Firefly universe thanks to spinoff comics, books, and the possibility of a sequel movie there will be additional details available from reliable sources to continue expanding these articles for years to come. - Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that something may be notable in the future is not criteria for current inclusion. [[Guest9999 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Reread what he said, he isn't predicting future notability. He is saying sources currently exist (for instance third-party sources Finding Serenity (BenBella Press, 2005) or Serenity Found (BenBella Press, 2007) or the forthcoming Serenity comic books (Dark Horse). Note that two of those are not future publications).Shsilver (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comic books are clearly no an independant third party source - as required to establish notability. No one has provided any information from the other sources to say that they contain the relevant information to establish notability for the characters. I would also question the indepenence of said sources as they seem have been compiled and edited by an acquantence of the creator of the television series. Even then does a collection of essays meet the depth of coverage requirement set out in WP:NN? [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
With essays in the books by individuals such as science fiction authors Orson Scott Card, Lawrence Watt-Evans, John C. Wright, Mercedes Lackey, and Tanya Huff, as well as philosophy professor Lyle Zynda (IU-SB), physics professor Ken Wharton (San Jose State University), and editor Ginjer Buchanan, none of whom are affiliated with the series, I would argue that yes, there is independence despite a tie between the editor and the series. Another third-party source is the documentary "Done the Impossible" (2006).Shsilver (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again to establish notability the source must be about the individual characters to justify an article. If the characters are only mentioned in the context of the series then the articles should be merged into the article for the series. If the cast as a whole is discussed then there should be an article on the cast. The individual charcetrs must be notable in their own right, notability is not inherited. No one has given any evidence that the content of the essay collections will establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
You mean besides the book and film that have been mentioned? Those are independent sources. There is clearly support to have articles about each character - you seem to be supporting a merge unless there are separate sources about each character. There is no such policy, guideline, or precedent. Furthermore, that is no reason for an AfD. That's a moment when you should suggest a merge. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the AfD as there are no independent secondary sources that are cited in the article and I did not believe any cwould or could be found. As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series. If a politicians spouse is mentioned in an article about the politician that does not make the spouse notable. In the same way if characters are mentioned in an article (or film or essay) about the tv series or other element of the tv series that does not make the character notable. Sources have emerged since the begining of the AfD which seem to mention the charcters in the context of the show, I was therefire only suggesting that it might be appropriate to move the information from the individual character articles into the article for the series. I still think the individual articles should be deleted as none of the information is sourced (or at least no sources are given on the pages) and nothing has been shown that establishes the notability of teh characters in their own right. Also I would seriously question whether a film made "by fans for fan" can truely be considered to be an independant source with the depth to establish notability. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Yes, that's why documentaries on, say, Star Wars are okay. Because the people who make those hate the Star Wars films. Documentaries and books with character analysis are OBVIOUSLY sources of reliable information about characters not "just the show." You can't possibly sit here and demand that a book be published about each character separately. This is absurd. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't demand anything, this is a collaborative project. I have no problem if the same source deals with each character individually and in their own right. For instance having a chapter or an individual essay about the character (or characters) would be fine - having an essay or chapter about the series in general which mentioned the character would not be (in terms of establishing notability). As for the film I would say a fan talking about a series is not a reliable source and so I don't see why it becomes a reliable source because were filmed whilst doing it. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
"The Good Book," by Eric Greene, Serenity Found, edited by Jane Espensen with Leah Watson, BenBella Press 2007, pp.79-94, ISBN=9781933771212, an essay specifically about Derrial Book's role on the show and in the film.Shsilver (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"More Than a Marriage of Convenience," by Michelle Sagara West, Finding Serenity, edited by Jane Espensen with Glenn Yeffeth, BenBella Press 2005, pp.97-103, ISBN=1932100431, an essat specifically about Wash and Zoe and the portrayal of their marriage on the show.Shsilver (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think then the question is do these sources have the depth required to establish notability - or since articles should be based around the information gained from reliable, independent sources - could these sources (supplemented with information from primary sources) be the basis for the content of the articles. Again, currently the articles are completely unsourced. [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Clearly, as someone who has read those essays, I would say yes. And I feel you should have called for citations before calling for AfD. But I'm also not going to spend a lot of time updating an article that might be deleted shortly after I put the work in. If the AfD fails, then I'll put the time and effort in.Shsilver (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As it is nobody has given a source about any of the characters mentioned - they have given the names of sources that are about the tv series" -- Rather inaccurate. I posted here three days ago that I had added a ref to the Inara article that dealt specifically with her. I also quoted another article that, from the Google Scholar excerpt, also seemed to be about specific characters, but I don't have access to the journal to verify that. So, please drop the "nobody has cited anything" argument, 'mkay? --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable sources have been mentioned by several other editors, they just need to be added to the article. Edward321 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as these characters have no reliable primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the television series or film spinoffs. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read this AfD? Sources are mentioned here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That and he doesn't seem to understand the term 'primary sources' since the TV series and movie are primary sources. Edward321 (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All or merge into single List of as was done with the minor characters as per nom. No notability on their own and only source is companion book to show. No other primarily or secondary third-party reliable sources or real-world relevance. Articles mostly fancruft and in-universe. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you claiming that the reference I added to Inara Serra several days ago is not third-party, not reliable, or not real-world?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does that reference actually source in the article? Furthermore, does one (or two or three) source(s) demonstrate significant coverage to establish notability? These articles either need establish notability through real-world relevance very fast, or the next AfD (if this one ends in a keep) is just around the corner. – sgeureka t•c 10:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It sources several things, most notably details about her relationship with Mal.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Her relationship with Mal is mostly of in-universe notability, but WP:FICT requires real-world content. Does the source say anything about the writers' inspiration for the character? How the actress was cast for the role? What about make-up and costumes? Was there merchandise for the character? It seems like one or two paragraphs for reception and other cultural impact could be squeezed out of this source, but none of this is currently included in the article, so you'd only have good faith working for the article at the moment. – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If there are proper sources about that relationship, then it is notable out-of-universe. Furthermore, you should not be threatening repeated AfDs like that. It's highly unproductive, and seems to indicate an unwillingness to cooperate with the established outcome of this AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • On the other hand, one paragraph of in-universe/out-of-universe notability (which still hasn't been added to the article) does not justify a separate article, that was my point. And I was also actually encouraging the addition of real-world content. Obviously, these articles' year-long existance before this AfD was highly unproductive, and editors in favor of keeping them were and still are unwilling to prove the nom's assertions wrong. This is all that has changed in the articles since the AfD has opened. Not very much in the light that the articles are "in danger". I can just hope that continued "threatening" (which I stated as a normal wiki procedure fact, not as my intention) actually accomplishes something, as nothing else seems to. – sgeureka t•c 14:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm afraid that out-of-universe references are required to substantiate the article per: WP:N. This policy says nothing about article content or how many paragraphs must contain a particular sort of information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I fully agree, so I don't know why you replied. None of these articles have demonstrated significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject ("significant" in this context would mean at least 10-20, telling from experience, and depending on how indepth they are). The policy does not say how secondary information should be arranged, right, but neither article has a single paragraph of out-of-universe information to begin with. So, unless proven otherwise, they fail WP:N as individual articles and should be merged in the hope that they can establish notability as a group. – sgeureka t•c 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Could you please explain where you've gotten the idea that 10-20 references are required to demonstrate notability? Furthermore, you're still arguing that the content compels the articles to fail WP:N, a point which (as I stated) is totally invalid. If the sources are there and the content needs more of it, then fix it (or ask someone else to). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Before asserting that I applied these guidelines and policies in a "totally invalid" way, would you please actually read them? Wikipedia:Notability – This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) – This page in a nutshell: Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability – The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I don't see any proof that these characters have received such significant independent coverage. And as you are in favor of keeping the articles as they are, it is your job to source the bulk of these articles (thereby demonstrating notability), not mine. In answer you other question, judging from my experience and also from any Featured Article, you get about two encyclopedic sentences out of every source. Two paragraphs (5 to 10 sentences each) of out-of-universe information would demonstrate significant coverage -> 10 to 20 sources to establish notability. Further questions? – sgeureka t•c 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we add to the Jayne Cobb article more about the popularity of Jayne's HAT in the real world knitting community, does that count? --Knulclunk (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, do it, and we'll find out. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Would work great in a costumes section. Is there a third-party article talking about the hat (e.g. like this Tarot article about Tarot in Carnivàle)? Otherwise, it is not more than one or two sourced sentences, which don't establish the notability of the character much in the absense of other material. – sgeureka t•c 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Characters of firefly or some similar, although the series was good, and the film was enjoyable (yes, I know it's OR) it was only one part series, and one film wihout major commercial sucsess. Notable enough for an article, but not for a whole platoon of them. And that's coming from a fan. --RedHillian (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's hardly a platoon, only articles for its main points, significantly improving our coverage over what one article would be able to do. And here's another thing that's mentioned surprisingly seldomly: the significance of a subject does not necessarily scale with how much there is to say, or needs to be said, about it. For instance, a complex character-based soap opera comic strip may be well within its rights to have articles dedicated to the cast in order to make the strip comprehensible to Wikipedia readers. Yet the strip can be smaller than one about a hedgehog. That swears. --Kizor (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per policy - no real-world content to establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or Merge because they're damn important to all the browncoats out here. User:Ragnarokmephy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.255.185 (talk) 04:37, 24 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) 12:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corbansick[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:59, 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 discussion here evidences that JAMAA as a movement or organization is not notable, as no independent sources for such a movement or organization could be found. The particular group in Burundi named JAMAA probably is notable; and an article tightly focused on it would likely be viable. But no mention of other groups with the same name should be made absent a specific reliable and independent source noting that they exist and describing the relationship to the original. To facilitate a rewrite, I'll drop the relevant citations from the article on the talk page of this AFD. GRBerry 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JAMAA[edit]

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

The whole article in its current state is a confused mess, first discussing a club in US colleges, that no sources write about and then following with a paragraph about a completely different organization with the same name, and somehow manages to conjure up a link between them. There might be something to be said about the second organization, but based on the references given, there's not enough for a real article, and while starting soccer games for peace might be a noble goal, it's questionably notable at best. In any case, the article as it is now does more harm than good, since it's entirely misleading. - -- Bobet (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to a proper article with relevant sources and citations being recreated. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article is well sourced and discusses a notable. I don't understand what it is that you are debating with this article. The clubs that are present in U.S. schools are based on and inspired by the original organization started in Africa. Like it says in the article, these organizations are individual and don't have any particular governing body. However, all JAMAA clubs across the United States have the same mission and purpose. -- Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In the DRV after your original article was speedied, Rhythmnation2004, you claimed that JAMAA met WP:N because its activities were national in scale. Well, if "these organizations are individual and don't have any particular governing body," then there isn't any organization whose activities are national in scale, just a few isolated clubs with the same name. Moreover, I'm not seeing any independent sources that establish the notability of these U.S. groups or their connection to the one in Burundi (which is the subject of the only sources in the article). Fails WP:V and WP:N. -- Deor (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom and Deor. I see no evidence of this being a notable national organization, just an organization that happens to be in several schools. Metros (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps someone can find additional references. i couldnt find anything for the organisation as a whole. But if there is no overall structure, it will be obviously difficult to write an article This has also been a problem with some religious or political affiliations without any central body. Don't know how to solve it. DGG (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment on this matter. What we really need to do here is step back and think "Does this article contribute to Wikipedia?". The answer would be, "Yes". With all the bureaucracy and red tape of this project, people tend to lose sight of its original purpose - to provide a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that any student can go to and find an article on any subject. Wikipedia has the reputation of providing its users with an unlimited amount of resources on even the most undiscussed topics; JAMAA is a perfect example of one of those topics. Because JAMAA is an organization with a strange name, and it appears in many schools, and is mentioned in notable publications, there will be people who come to Wikipedia in search of answers. I am a member of JAMAA. No, I am not an owner of JAMAA, a sponsor of JAMAA, and have no financial interest in it. It is simply a non-profit club at my school. And I can not tell you how many times I have had people come up to me to ask me what JAMAA meant and what our purpose was. Third-party sources discussing JAMAA are few and far between, and the ones currently cited in the article are truly the best ones; having the opportunity to combine these sources into one article is beneficial to anyone who is trying to learn about this organization. I believe that it shows ignorance to assume that "these are just organizations with the same name who don't have anything to do with eachother", when "JAMAA", particularly spelled in all caps, is a unique name in and of itself, and it's unlikely that independent JAMAA organizations would sprout up across the world without any inspiration from another. These JAMAA organizations are indeed connected, with their leaders meeting occasionally to discuss the direction of their mission. However, like the article says, it just simply doesn't have one, single governing body, like many religious or political groups, as DGG previously said. Before you all jump to delete this article, stop and ask yourself "Does this article contribute to Wikipedia?". And any of you who have a curious mind and a heart will most definitely say "Yes". Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Third-party sources discussing JAMAA are few and far between..." Why? Because it's not notable. Metros (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, if there is a connection, provide a source. There's absolutely no information on which JAMAA the first two sources refer to, they could be part of the "Jewish-Arab-Muslim American Association" or something else, there's no way to know by just reading the word, and you asserting otherwise isn't going to convince people as a source. - Bobet (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a movement based in Burundi, for which reliable sources have been provided. Claims to have chapters in other parts of the world should be sourced. Most discussion here so far seems to based on whether JAMAA is notable as a national US organisation, although the article (at least in its present form) makes no such claim, and doesn't have to if the movement is notable elsewhere. Let's be careful to avoid systemic bias. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Countering systemic bias doesn't mean you include organizations simply because they exist in a third world country. If an American organization did charitable work by starting soccer games between two participating groups in a conflict, and the only source was one human interest story (that is on two sites, albeit worded differently), you wouldn't argue for its inclusion. If there's something more to be said about that organization, rather than the one sentence you currently have in the article, please expand the article or at least provide sources so that someone else can do it. Thanks. - Bobet (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point about systemic bias is not that anything should be included just because it's from a third world country. It's that it will be more difficult to find reliable sources for an organisation which exist in a country where there a very few editors of English Wikipedia, and low internet accessibilty in general, so we should be very careful about deleting just because a Google search doesn't find much. In order to research this properly it would be necessary to check the Burundian press. I haven't got the means to that, and I'm sure that it would take quite some time to find someone who has. If this was an American organization of similar notabily sources would be much easier to find because they would almost certainly be online and in English. Let's give this a bit more time to see if better sources can be found. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please take a look at the current article. Is anything it says about the organization true, based on the given sources? The only thing you have is the founder's name. When I first saw the article, I wanted to fix it, but without enough reliable sources, I couldn't. If someone does find sources, great, he can write a new article. But actually keeping a misleading article simply because a part of it is true even when the rest is guesswork, isn't smart in my opinion. - Bobet (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom and fact, it's not notable--English836 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to English836's input as he is an employee of Google and therefore may have a bias towards subjects that do not have many Google hits. It seems that the systemic bias policy is being ignored, since this nomination is almost solely based on the fact that the subject does not have many online sources. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, by far that is the oddest objection to a deletion !vote I think I have ever encountered. A bias because he works for Google...yeah...But if you look closely at his user page, he says specifically that he works for the radio project within Google...nothing that entails the production of Google hits or search results. So I can not see how any bias would exist. Metros (talk) 02:59, 23 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 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resist, Inc.[edit]

Resist, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability. Speedy tag and PROD both removed without reasons given. Substantial editing done by SPA accounts, bringing up major POV problems, COI problems (one SPA user is named resistinc) No assertion of Notability, reads like a POV-pushing essay. Keeper | 76 22:19, 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 - apparent hoax. Addhoc 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. D. Compose[edit]

Dr. D. Compose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a hoax (tagged accordingly). I couldn't find anything on the man. Martijn Hoekstra 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha ha, being a non-native speaker, I'm a little slow. I'll CSD tag for vandalism. Martijn Hoekstra 16:37, 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 No consensus. Article is four months old and still has no WP:RS or WP:V in it. This AfD did not uncover any significant sources in this area but several reviews mentioned here indicate moderate notability. I'll admit I vacillated several times between "delete" and "no consensus" because of this lack of substantial sources. Pigman☿ 05:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAGAP[edit]

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

No independent, reliable reviews or articles. Plenty of download sites and a few blog mentions, but nothing to satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reviews? Here's some; [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

In addition to these the game has been featured in multiple printed magazines, both gaming and freeware software alike. And it has it's own spot on GameSpot [15], which is far from granted for freeware games; Unlike with commercial games, freeware titles that appear on GameSpot are, in their opinion, worth noticing. (quoting from GameSpot's Knowledgebase);

Why doesn't GameSpot have free or pay to play games in the database?

Because of the high number of free "casual" games on the Web, GameSpot restricts Web/Online-Only games to those that offer pay-to-play options. While we may decide to expand our coverage to include ALL games eventually, GameSpot's main focus is retail-released and digitally distributed games.

I sincirely hope you'd reconsider this decision, which seems a bit like jumping the gun, since WikiPedia features plenty of other freeware games with a lot less actual press/Internet coverage and international popularity, i.e. Liero. 

--Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep i think it is relevant as it is an article about a game but needs cleanup and sources Ctjf83 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep specialist sources and foreign language sources have reasonable coverage of this game. [16] [17] [18]. Particularly the last link looks quite notable. As a quite recent development, I would favour giving this chance. The sources I linked allow for a reasonably-sized verified stub. User:Krator (t c) 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In terms of trying to find coverage that satisfies WP:N, these links (9, 10, 11) are trivial press releases. Of Necrophilissimo's links, the Gamespot entry does not provide any significant coverage. Links 1 to 7; I haven't heard of any of these sites so can't comment on how they might be reliable sources, but certainly the review from German magazine PC Action is acceptable. Necro; I'm not sure what decision you want me to reconsider? Marasmusine (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - RE: "Necro; I'm not sure what decision you want me to reconsider?". I mean the deletion in general; TAGAP is a hardcore kind of game which is steadily gaining popularity, has dedicated support from the developers and has a sequel coming up promising a freeware franchise of sorts. Since I'm personally involved in creation of the sequels, I can't improve the article myself with the wanted references (i.e. Moby Games [19], Wikia [20] and article in Finnish magazine Pelit [21]). And worth mentioning is All Media Guide, in which TAGAP is featured in both AllMusicGuide [22] and AllGameGuide [23]. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Necro, the article in Pelit will help with establishing notability, if you can provide a citation. The Mobygames, Wikia, AMG and AGG links are too trivial, really (take a look at WP:N). I appreciate you might be concerned about WP:COI if you are involved in the game, but any citations you can provide will be useful (and at this point we are looking for non-trivial, independent articles, not just anonymous directory entries). Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE:Marasmusine; In what manner do I add the PELIT article; It's in the printed, physical magazine, so is it enough that I provide the issue/page/writer/publisher information, or do I need to scan the article? I can scan it, it's not a problem. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Liero and Soldat has what? like 4 pages of text, and TAGAP can't even get one? --Deep Alexander (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think all links but the first one of Necrophilissimo's and a Finnish gaming zine are totally acceptable as Wikipedia citations. And seven references should be more than enough to prove the game's notablity. Neko jarashi (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While all the links are fine for citations, they aren't all suitable to show notability. However, I see at least one which can be used (PC Action), and if the article in Pelit magazine is usable, that makes two (Necro, it is a full article, isn't it, and not just a press release or trivial mention?) I'll be happy to work them into the article when this AfD is closed. Marasmusine (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think makes PC Action article suited for offering notability of the game? I read, and since my understanding of the German language is very limited, Google Translated the said article, but I didn't find anything more than regular reviewing of a video game in it. Neko jarashi (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you're right, I ran it through Alta Vista and it just seems to be a token game description and download page. I thought it was a review from the actual paper magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Pelit article is a their mini-review, the kind they have for budget-releases. Shorter than their triple-A title review, but certainly longer their one paragraph 'just released freeware games' announcements. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thanks for your answer, Murasmusine. So you think only published paper materials should be considered reliable sources in Wikipedia? But it appears that Wikipedia policies allow usage of online materials as well if appropriate. Also, as far as I know, WP:N or other guidelines/policies in Wikipedia do not impose a task that notability of a subject must clearly be stated by outside sources, which leads to a conclusion that it is the Wikipedia editors who ultimately decide if a given subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That said, and given that most of freeware games, or freewares in general, are usually not covered even in a single substantial material, I think that the fact that TAGAP has been recieved extensive coverages by six decent-looking websites is a proof of notability. Neko jarashi (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would personally delete this, but I'd rather let a more experienced Admin make the decision here.Balloonman (talk) 01:25, 25 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 close - {{notenglish}} used instead. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bms megapolis[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. Non english content. It doesn't classify for speedy A2 as I don't know if it's on another wiki. Martijn Hoekstra 16:03, 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 redirect. Merge can happen if/when the target suggested by Elkman gets big enough that merging wouldn't put undue emphasis on the snippet about Mr. Mason. GRBerry 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mason tract[edit]

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

Delete contested prod, its a nn tract of land that gets mentioned in lots of travel sites on google like nearly any random hotel you may choose, but nothing indicating that it has obtained significant coverage in independent reliable third-party sources.Carlossuarez46 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No non-trivial coverage found. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like it's a section within the Grayling Unit of Au Sable State Forest, so merge it to that article. State forests and recreation areas are generally notable enough for Wikipedia. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:16, 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 as nn-club. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business process council[edit]

Business process council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod, google has about 750 hits for "Business process council" some of which appear to be this one, formed only this year apparently, what is relevant appears to be mostly repetitions of their press releases by news aggregators that print everyone's press releases. No significant coverage by independent third-party reliable sources as needed to establish notability per WP:N and WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 15:54, 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 --JForget 00:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Fibbers[edit]

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

Nothing special here. A few members of the band went on to form other less than great bands, but that is it. Metal Head 15:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Geraldine Fibbers meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, here's some supporting evidence (remember they need to meet one of the notability criteria):
  • criterion 1, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", here are some reviews of their album Butch from well-known sources: from Salon mag, from CMJ mag, from Rolling Stone, from LA Times. (By the way should review links like this go into the main article? Would that help clarify notability?)
  • criterion 5, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". They released two albums on Virgin (the first one on Hut, a subsidiary of Virgin).
--mcld 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Along with the criteria listed above, I would point to #6 as well. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Nels Cline was a notable member that found success outside of this band. He later went on to become a member of Wilco, a notable band. Geraldine Fibbers is also notable in its own right. Their album Lost Somewhere Between The Earth and My Home was released by Virgin Records, a major label. [24]. This article is in need of citations, but the band definitely meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Here are a few links to establish that they are somewhat notable. These aren't of the best quality, but you get the picture:[25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. And finally there's this one, a review by Rolling Stone [30]. --Cyrus Andiron 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Plenty of references are available; I didn't notice if the {{unreferenced}} template was added to the article, but with the addition thereof and of citations the article will certainly be valid. --tennisman 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both sites seem to include nothing worthy/notable about the band. A non important band does not need to be mentioned. Plus, the All Music Guide is only one source, and 95% of the time, it hardly has anything great too. That one source does not give great cause to this band. -- Metal Head (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. Could do with expansion and more refs.---- Michig (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded the article slightly. They were signed to Virgin Records and released several albums on that label (or subsidiary Hut), which should make keeping a no-brainer.---- Michig (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple albums on a major label and reasonable press meets WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Cyrus Andiron and Tony Fox. Definitely meets WP:MUSIC. -- Hal peridol (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per all above, WP:MUSIC is clearly met here through reliable sources and two albums on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The nominator's assertion that the members went on to form "other less than great bands", does that hint a POV flavour to this nomination? Anyway, no-brainer keep per 10lbH's comment directly above this one. tomasz. 11:28, 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. Hut 8.5 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pike[edit]

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

Several google searches resulted only in this article. Subject doesn't seem to meet notability and/or is not verifiable -- Poeloq (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, the show is notable. One person from one episode from one season is not. Keeper | 76 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite claims of having "appeared in The Advocate, TV Guide, Boston Globe, The New York Times, Metro, Boston Herald, Inside Track", he doesn't seem to appear in any searches of these publications outside of a passing mention within stories about True Life. johnpseudo 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1985-86 New York Rangers season[edit]

1985-86 New York Rangers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. It's empty other then the sentence at the top. Endless Dan 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nom. This is provided that the user who has been working on this item plans to help expand each of the similar articles he created. --Endless Dan 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Maple Leaf has been *extremely* busy over the past few weeks creating articles like this one for seasons. I expect he does intend to populate the rest of the article with information. Perhaps it's worth having a word with him about what he plans to do. ---- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. How do I retract my AfD? --Endless Dan 18:36, 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 neologism. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intervasion[edit]

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

Page is unsourced, and the only source I can find is the CD-ROM (?) Invasion, Intervention, "Intervasion": A Concise History of the United States Army in Operation Uphold Democracy (also here perhaps?). I'm not sure if this is a book on tape, a powerpoint presentation, a program or a government document. Irrespective, the page appears to be a neologism, with no reliable sources or notability; the page creator has edited the page to indicate sources will appear in December, and it will be be discussed, indicating in addition, a possible violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against re-creation should the term gain use in the media in the future. Currently it appears to have no actual use. Contents have already been transwikied to wiktionary. WLU 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't assert notability. This isn't a dictionary. johnpseudo 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this appears to be a hoax - I'm an Australian with an interest in foreign affairs and defence and have never heard this word used so it is not the case that it is a common Australian word as the article asserts. This edit from the article's creator "For relaible sources to be quoted under Wikipedia rules, please be patient until political comment includes this term. Expected mid December 2007." suggests that it's something they either made up or isn't used outside the circle they move in. ---- Nick Dowling (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick. People are always trying to coin new words. This one is one of those silly attempts like "intellichoice" or "warnography" that are too polysyllabic to catch on. Mandsford (talk) 02:35, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monster Allergy characters[edit]

List of Monster Allergy characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of non-notable characters from a barely notable Comic Book/Cartoon series. The main Monster Allergy article is short enough that the important characters can have small entries in that article. Ridernyc 14:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The book/series is not "barely notable", it's probably just way way below / outside your interest and mine. The list includes notable and non-notable characters. By & large, if we have to have the damn things at all, I can see why the authors are taking what seems to be a very standard line for this sort of thing - article for the series, article listing characters, discrete articles for key characters. I considered merge, but in all honesty, I wouldn't. The article needs to point back to Monster Allergy - how many of these things have I seen with precisely zero content? Whatever. I think you;re on a hiding to nothing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article totally ignores WP:Plot,WP:WAF, WP:Fiction, WP:RS, and probably a few more policies/guidelines. Ridernyc 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Monster Allergy - article's short, with very little detail on characters. Merging the pages and turning the list into a prose summary seems a good idea. WLU 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comic book and cartoon series appear to be very notable, as it was created and still in print in Italy, and the cartoon is shown in the US and Canada on Kids' WB and throughout Asia on Disney Channel Asia. There are more than 60 Google News hits for the series, in different languages. I think that the list of characters is an acceptable spin-off of the main article. A merge (including the information in Elena Potato and Ezekiel Zick) will IMO swamp the main article, which covers both the TV series and the comic book (which are notable enough for individual articles). The information about the actors who voice the characters is real world information. There is some WP:RS about the two main characters here [31], [32], but unfortunately it's in Italian. Bláthnaid 15:28, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel Zick[edit]

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

Non Notable character from a barely notable tv show Ridernyc 14:11, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Potato[edit]

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

Non Notable character from a barely notable tv show. Ridernyc 14:09, 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. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austinpowerism[edit]

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

Delete as neologism. I found two Google results for Austinpowerism. It was apparently coined by Roger Ebert on November 15, but it doesn't appear to be used anywhere other than that one article and a blog. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Handschuh-talk to me 14:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the word is a neologism, but an apt one. Rick Norwood 14:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not the first place technique was used. No evidence this is a valid neologism rather than merely a "throw away'" term used once by a notable person. --Evb-wiki 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NEO. Bláthnaid 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Evb-wiki. Austin Powers is hardly the first movie to do this. JuJube 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEO - a reliable secondary source defines this term.---- 207.172.220.225 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a Redirect to Roger Ebert, since people are bound to look this up, it's nice to just redirect it. One can then edit the Roger Ebert page to include this. You can lock it if you want to prevent vandalism.--207.172.220.225 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete That's not how WP:NEO reliable sources requirement works. Someone has to write about the term and how it is used, not just use it/make it up. This term does not fit the bill. Trash it. i kan reed (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO - Not an inherently notable neologism.---- WaltCip (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non notable neologism. --- RiverHockey (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...if there were more sources and uses of the word then it would be keepable, but there isn't Ctjf83 21:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article does, however, follow the time-honored Wikipedian rule about working in a reference to "The Simpsons" Mandsford (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impressive how Beowulf is already worked in. Kablammo (talk) 02:42, 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 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time and stress management[edit]

Time and stress management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is an essay. Information on the topic is already covered at Time management and Stress management. Think outside the box 12:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as essay/how to guide. Not encyclopaedic. Handschuh-talk to me 14:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Think outside the box, per Handschuh, and as management fad-wannabe bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is remarkably ironic that we should be wasting our time deleting such wise words. I have saved them to my desktop as they are one of the better things I've found here. Colonel Warden 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good advice, but not encyclopedic Ctjf83 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got stressed out about the time I spent reading these words of wisdom. I'm glad that someone found something inspirational in this, but an encylopedia isn't the place for someone's philosophy of life. Some people dispense nuggets of wisdom... some people dump 14 tons worth. Mandsford (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:OR. I give out this assignment all the time in my Law office management course. This sounds exactly like a paralegal student's essays. Redirect and merge with Time management if needed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely WP:OR, and pretty much a duplicate of the articles pointed out in the nomination already. --Nehwyn (talk) 16:23, 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 delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Empire[edit]

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

No claim of notability in article, author's article was deleted as CSD A7. Delete this, possibly speedy? Jonathan Oldenbuck 12:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete / Comment By inserting the ISBN number there is just about enough to hold this back from WP:CSD#A7 - but barely. No real assertion as to why this novel is notable other than it being published. Suspect this is just promotional. Pedro :  Chat  12:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly deletable under WP:PLOT. Don't know about the speedy though. Handschuh-talk to me 14:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle with some information about this book. The author of the article says that he knows the book's author Django Wexler. A search on the author's name also came up with this article on Factiva, but I don't have access to it to see if it can be used as a RS. Since the author has also published a second book, perhaps Django Wexler could be undeleted and the book article merged into it? Bláthnaid 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —Bláthnaid 15:58, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following review request and admin consensus, reclosed as merge and redirect to omphalism. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed by:

- Alison ❤ 08:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I would have closed this as merge and redirect as well (I came across this in the WP:AFDO log). Daniel 09:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Thursdayism[edit]

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

Not notable. The only references are to a defunct homepage and a discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup. Last Thursdayism is a fine rhetorical argument, and perhaps deserves a passing mention in the five minute hypothesis or omphalism articles, but does not seem to be notable enough for its own article LeContexte 12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Omphalos or Five minute hypothesis. Handschuh-talk to me 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Omphalos or Five minute hypothesis. -- Langelgjm (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Five minute hypothesis and keep content. Omphalos is a distinct concept and should not be merged. Last Thursdayism and the Five minute hypothesis, however, are basically identicial, and information about one necessarily informs the other. --M@rēino 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Mareino. In addition, apparently some explanation (in the text) as to the idea's status is in order. It might be viewed as a giddy joke best left to chatboxes and blogs, but at the same time it may function as a critique (or at least a satire) of omphalism and even creationism. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though merging to Omphalos (theology) or Five minute hypothesis (not just a non-merge redirect) would work too if that's the consensus. While it isn't a hugely popular "parody religion," having been overshadowed by Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, I've heard it mentioned a number of times in connection to FSM as Last Thursdayism makes a good point that isn't directly addressed by FSM "beliefs". I'm pretty sure it got a mention on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe at least once during a discussion about intelligent design and FSM. It's notable enough to be preserved in some way. --Icarus (Hi!) 07:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content whatever else is done. If it is to be merged, I think Five minute hypothesis is the closest match. On the question of whether it deserves a separate article, I don't think the scales tip strongly in either direction. My inclination in such a case is to preserve status quo. --Randall Nortman (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Five minute hypothesis :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely notable, could be better referenced. Possibly merge Five minute hypothesis (a much shorter article) into Last Thursdayism. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with merging five minute hypothesis into Last Thursdayism, despite the fact that it is the shorter one, because the five minute hypothesis is historically the much more noteworthy one. It would be nice if it were a bit longer, but then again, the concept is quite simple, and does not really need much exposition. It is possible that the best thing is to merge all three articles together. I think in that case that since both five minute hypothesis and Last Thursdayism are essentially responses to Omphalos (theology), that the latter should be the one that remains, including the content of the other two. Or we could stick with the status quo, which really isn't hurting anybody. --Randall Nortman (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USENET is a reliable source of information about what has been said on USENET, which is essentially what this article is all about. I don't see any original research here. On USENET, it was original "research". Here, it is a summary of the results of that "research". This is the modern version of a bunch of Greek guys sitting around chatting about philosophy while enjoying a Mediterranean vista, coming up with a few interesting ideas that get scrawled onto scolls, copied and stored in a library, and eventually end up in philosophy textbooks. --Randall Nortman (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content and merge - article is not referenced by reliable sources and the subject does not appear to be sufficiently different from teh five minute hypothesis. Skomorokh incite 16:42, 22 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) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of graduate school fellowships[edit]

List of graduate school fellowships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are thousands of these internationally - and the details change all the time - unmaintainable list Docg 12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nomination - Springnuts 12:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable. Handschuh-talk to me 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I was the original author of the page, I think you are right. This is not easily maintainable (I havent even attempted to do so!) ... This AfD has my blessing :) - grubber (talk) 23:52, 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 all 3 as POVFORKs. GRBerry 04:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Sabbatarianism[edit]

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

POV-fork, along with Opposition to Christian Sabbatarianism, from the article Sabbath in Christianity. The last page is often edited and is a moderately controversial page, yet massive changes were made without prior talk page discussion. User:Tonicthebrown reverted the changes on the last page, agreeing with my suggestion to do so on the talk page.

I am also nominating the following related articles because they are corresponding POV-forks and the changes on the original page were reverted:

Opposition to Christian Sabbatarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Colin MacLaurin 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Sunday observance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Colin MacLaurin 13:28, 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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G11 - blatant self promotion. Pedro :  Chat  15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koby[edit]

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

Is a new page, which appears to have been created from an Answers.com page. Probably re-creation of a deleted page. Also created by User:Kobybusiness, so probably WP:COI. Cricketgirl 11:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete As a copyright violation Toddst1 11:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The answers.com site is a mirror of the orginal Wikipedia text and therefore this is not a copyright violation. Pedro :  Chat  12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I thought, hence AFD rather than speedy. Was it previously deleted? Cricketgirl 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Deleted as an expired prod. Let's run it through this process to get consensus to delete it through a wider forum. Pedro :  Chat  12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the page is a re-creation of the article of the same name, deleted after proposed deletion with a reason of "Not a notable subject for a biographic article" (this makes it a contested proposed deletion). Let's look at the article in detail.

    "Koby is one of the 'Founding Fathers' of the concept, United States Of Africa." This is contradicted by other sentences in the article, first of them: "The phrase was first introduced in Marcus Garvey's poem 'Hail, United States of Africa,' in 1924." The text that follows is not about Koby, but rather about African Union etc.

    The next sentence that has anything to do with the topic is "Koby is a descendent [corrected from "ancestor" in the deleted revision] of Kwame Nkrumah (first president of Ghana, West Africa) and is from the Republic of Ghana, a country in West Africa. Several more sentences about the history of Ghana follow; then we can see the following: "Koby currently resides in the Bay Area, California, United States and lives by one philosophy, 'GIVE IT ALL OR TAKE NOTHING.'" And there's the final sentence from the deleted article, conveniently left out by the re-creator: "He is a senior political science student in California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obsipo."

    The references don't work: www.kwamenkrumah.com is a parked domain, and pages at www.marcusgarvey.com are not references, but rather self-published essays. Then we're left with "'United States of Africa?' at BBC News", an article that nowhere mentions "Koby" [33], and "Statement of the UA Commission Chairperson" - hard to know what it refers to, but probably something to do with African Union and nothing with "Koby".

    I should also note that the creator moved the article to Joby and then to Joby1, possibly to sabotage the deletion process (which I have undone).

    Verdict: Speedy delete as vanity, nonsense, and political promotion. Marking as such. - Mike Rosoft 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable founding father of equally non notable concept.Handschuh-talk to me 14:29, 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 per WP:SNOW. Fabrictramp 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien's Stories[edit]

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

This is a cut and paste of Toy Story and a clear hoax. However Hoaxes do not fall under Speedy Deletion criteria. Recommend deletion. Pedro :  Chat  11:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would take small exception to that (as I pointed out on Jimbo's talk page); at least the hoaxer went to the trouble of creating a dumb fake movie poster to go with the dumb fake article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax. --DAJF 12:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't we speedy it? Handschuh-talk to me 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be "quickly got rid of" per WP:SNOW but not under a WP:CSD criteria. Just find another admin (I can't as I'm involved) who'll delete per snowballl. Pedro :  Chat  14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously a mock-up based on Toy Story. Why all this hoo-hurrah about "process"? It's so obviously a fictional joke, you're just diminishing the reputation of Wikipedia, every minute it remains. --Mister GJK 15:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthos family tree[edit]

Corinthos family tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not only is this unsourced family tree inappropriate for inclusion, it is that of a fictional family which would make it hard to expand beyond a plot summary. The information already exists at the three characters' articles. MER-C 10:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Marz[edit]

Children of Marz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trip Marz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This cult doesn't seem to exist, or at least I couldn't verify its existence. Single digit ghits, ghits for alternate title are unrelated. MER-C 10:50, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Road RPG[edit]

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

Unverifiable article on a non-notable Warcraft mod. The 87 unique ghits don't help. MER-C 10:44, 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 per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Biting Waterlion Rose Pedro :  Chat  12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African biting waterlion rose[edit]

African biting waterlion rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lists three links apparently as references, though none mention the article's subject. Also, the claims made are somewhat dubious at first glance; perhaps a hoax article. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 10:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Todd[edit]

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

Fails Notability - trivial inventor. Failed {{prod}} Toddst1 10:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. no ghits for item, fails WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Handschuh-talk to me 10:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bizzarre - the reference offered is a real book which would normally confer at least some notability [34], however it was published two years before he was allegedly born, so I can't see it having much to say about the subject. Glen Cynthia Todd is a rather implausible name, and nobody called Glen Todd appears to have been granted a patent,[35] so I smell a hoax - delete. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Since I made this comment, the article creator has changed the book's date of publication given in the article to 1996, but Amazon lists it as having been published in 1970. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:47, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Chill Dara[edit]

Gaelscoil Chill Dara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A primary school (school for young children) that fails WP:NOTABILITY. Brewcrewer 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. --Brewcrewer 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Handschuh-talk to me 10:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't feel it merited a speedy, but I do agree that 99.9% of elementary schools are not notable. Kafziel Talk 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual primary schools are not notable. A list of Gaelscoileanna would be nice though. Bláthnaid 10:27, 21 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 (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A God Amongst Men[edit]

Non-notable book, apparently self-published, not even published yet. No sources (sorry, WP:YMINAR), no relevant Google hits, can't be verified. Contested prod. Very nearly a speedy candidate as spam. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's Explodin'[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Has been orphaned and tagged for cleanup since 2006. Torc2 08:52, 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. DS (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diethylamide zapotecorum inhibitor[edit]

Non-existent (hoax) drug. Nehwyn 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it was "made in the CIA secret laboratory" and even if it does cure AIDS. Diethylamide is the "D" is LSD, by the way. Mandsford (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Diethylamide is a chemical group, it can be part of a number of substances. It's the "lisergic" part of LSD that makes LSD what it is. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the chemistry lesson. And I suppose that lysergic acid dumplings would be just as psychedelic. However, the "D" still is short for diethylamide. The "LS" is there because "LAD" wouldn't be appropriate. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:47, 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual tourism[edit]

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

Article is WP:OR and doesn't satisfy WP:N. The subject matter is can be adequately covered by Virtual reality and by various travel-related subjects Torc2 11:47, 10 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 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)--Tikiwont 08:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Ghits for the phrase aren't enough to salvage the article. It's spectacularly poorly written and entirely unsourced OR. It changes gears half-way through the first paragraph from describing satellite mapping websites to being an ad for an Italian company that does VR historical reconstructions. Nothing clearly indicates whether the topic is a form of virtual reality or just a method of vacation planning. Torc2 09:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subtle WP:ADVERT. --Brewcrewer 10:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virtual Reality since the term Virtual tourism seems to be notable -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tourism - or just delete. The article here is largely WP:OR imo, plus the subtle advertising is also noted. Springnuts 12:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This does appear to exist, so it's not a hoax -- see [36], for example. But it needs too much work to rescue, IMHO. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWiki[edit]

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

Wiki software. No independent sources, no claim of notability, not strictly an A7 speedy (product not firm). Guy (Help!) 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not remove this entry. While it does refer to a vendor product, I am not a vendor and I found the information very valuable. Whether the claims of perfomance are valid or not, anyone reading an uncorraborated performance claim should recognize it as a subjective opinion. If that is the true reason for removal, then simply remove the claims from the Wiki entry not the entire entry.

This was linked from the matrix that compares wiki engines. [[37]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_wiki_software]Boar Hunter 14:50, 13 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 08:27, 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. W.marsh 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hassanain Rajabali[edit]

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

Unfamous personal OsamaK 07:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Handschuh-talk to me 10:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Gets a fair amount of ghits, but article doesn't establish why he passes WP:BIO. --Brewcrewer 11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —GRBerry 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the ghits received are ~500, i wasn't able to spot any which met the criteria of non-trivial coverage from a reliable source (hence i don't think the topic meets our notability criteria). ITAQALLAH 12:08, 24 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. Hut 8.5 15:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rummble[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The article was started by the organization's founder, and the only two sources listed are blogs. The Alexa rank for their main website is off the bottom of the scale. MorrisRob 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Only sources in Google/Google News appear to be blogs, unreliable sources of that kind, making this article about a non-notable subject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:44, 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 close, WP:SNOW, result a Redirect. I've also restored the page history and would note here that the admins who deleted the page as an attack page need to do their job just a little more thoroughly. The consensus developing here could of course change, but I think the essential point of the debate wouldn't change overly, the margin between keep, redirect and delete in this instance are fairly slim. It's a useful search term for the creator, our guidance instructs us to consider the redirect option and the page history may prove useful. Hiding Talk 10:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bitchy Bitch[edit]

Delete stub about character of no known notability. What little information the article has already appears in the article (stub) about the comic, rendering this article redundant. Doczilla 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic page, admin's (and I at first) seem to think it is an attack, and have deleted it twice. Currently the page is a redirect to Roberta Gregory. Please close this debate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 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 as WP:CSD#A7. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center[edit]

Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Question was raised on the Japanese version talk page ja:ノート:原子力資料情報室 to delete on basis of notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool for NPOs and advocacy groups. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 06:54, 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 Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Characters in Battalion Wars[edit]

List of Characters in Battalion Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of characters in the Gamecube title Battalion Wars. Violates WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIR. Original article does not have sufficient content to justify splitting off a separate list of characters. jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 06:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it. If List of Advance Wars Co stay so does this. Besides many characters appeared in the Battlaion Wars series. Also there is no Battalion Wars Wiki in Wikia.(TougHHead 06:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please note that this discussion is only regarding the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. Any concerns you have about the content of other wikis should be raised there, not here. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. - BillCJ 07:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Handschuh-talk to me 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and the fact that this is completely unref'ed and no notability for such a list has been established. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if the page is deleted then the characters in Battalion Wars and Battalion Wars 2 got to be listed somewhere in character sections in the 2 Battalion Wars articles.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Providing an overview of characters involved in a given video game is allowable as long as you can keep it from being a guide. Part of my nomination was that the Battalion Wars article is not long or detailed enough to justify the splitting off of this information. On another note, please use bullets (*) and indentations (:) to clarify who you are responding to when you comment. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 07:19, 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 Aldo Franco Arabic. I hate to do this but I don't see enough below to delete Franco Arabic too, so it will need a separate AFD, or perhaps WP:PROD will work. W.marsh 14:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Franco Arabic[edit]

Aldo Franco Arabic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability (for example WP:MUSIC #7, representative of notable style, and #2, charted hit), but that does not seem to be verifiable; only google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors, and the external links don't go anywhere useful. Hoax, perhaps? It was previously deleted per G11 (blatant advertising) but that doesn't seem as true in this version. A tag was placed to delete per G4 (recreation of deleted material) but that doesn't apply to speedy deletions. Rigadoun (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I suggest deletion of the article about the style, Franco Arabic, which I couldn't find any references to as a specific genre of music (i.e., it is perhaps a neologism) on the web, and again the external links are useless. I just noticed there are allegations of sockpuppetry against the users creating these pages as well. Rigadoun (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image, listed as PD, from a previous version of this page that should be deleted if the article is, Image:Image-Aldo.png. Rigadoun (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that oncoming links to both pages seem to have been created by the author(s): Arabic music, Dalida; others recently by 124.120.39.83 (talk · contribs) (presumably the author logged-out) Amr Diab, Hisham Abbas, Angela Dimitriou and 124.120.35.163 (talk · contribs) Jayashri Ramnath, and 124.120.35.235 (talk · contribs) Omar Sharif. I can't find anything earlier than about six days ago. Rigadoun (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Aldo Franco Arabic and Franco Arabic per the Wikipedia:Verifiability concerns given above. -- Michaelbusch (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above unless reliable sourcing is produced. Verifiability matters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, as above, but *weak keep for Franco Arabic: there's at least one website referring to it, which wouldn't be out there unless some people used the term. Concerned there's not more on the web though. Shouldn't these votes be separated? Drmaik (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one? Of the links here, I could only find trivial references, and on a google search I couldn't find any that seemed to be on the topic of the article, or indicating anything more than just a nationality. Rigadoun (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one. I agree most of the other external links are junk. May be it isn't enough to establish notability, but it seems to indicate something's there. Drmaik (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, yes, that might establish something exists, though it's hard to tell what it is (or if it's a specific genre). However, there's a problem that none of the artists mentioned here are there and vice versa, so there's a problem with verifiability of the facts in this article. Rigadoun (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, without prejudice to the creation of a redirect to a suitable article. Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassetdor[edit]

Bassetdor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Rudy.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Bassetdor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable canine crossbreed. A number of previous AFDs* have determined that, except in exceptional cases, pairings of extant breeds are not inherently notable. This article contains several references, but they only verify incidental claims about the parent breeds; only one mentions the Bassetdor, and that mention appears to be in passing. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor dog crossbreeds redirected about twenty of them, for example.
Motion I move that this deletion nomination be withdrawn on the grounds that its rationale is patently invalid. To wit: the phrase of the rationale above: only one mentions the Bassetdor is no longer valid, as we now have three separate direct quotations. Dr.K. (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. You can't do that. If articles change significantly during an AfD, then commenters can change their opinions... but the article hasn't changed significantly, so the point is moot. (Adding references to two web pages on which the term is used - both of them trivial - comes way short of invalidating the AfD.) I have, in fact, removed the reference to the Sims fansite, as it adds nothing to the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record As I mentioned in the advocate section below these creatures are mutts. They are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of dogs. Their pawprints on pop culture are very faint. These links I provided, one of which you just erased, are a very faint cultural pawprint. It is forensic evidence that they exist in pop culture. This evidence may be faint, but it is not trivial. When dealing with the underprivileged one needs to be very sensitive otherwise one may condemn them to even more obscurity. Dr.K. (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkYVery strong keep Deletion rationale provided is misleading. Quote from the article: Brian Kilcommons has accurately described "the absurdly wonderful Bassetdor, the product of an affair between a Basset Hound and a Labrador, who looks like a Lab in a funhouse mirror."[1]

The mention has to be in passing because:

  1. This is a book preview. Kilcommons has to highlight the book, not the dog.
  2. The book has a chapter on Bassetdor with much more coverage

Kilcommons is a canine trainer extraordinaire with great experience in dogs and dog training. If Bassetdor is mentioned in his book that's notable enough. Quote from the minor dogs crossbreeds for deletion link you provided above: The articles fail to source information to reliable sources. Each articles cites a boilerplate page on dogbreedinfo.com and the AKC definition of a mixed breed. Kilcommons, canine trainer par excellence, protégé of the late dog training icon Barbara Woodhouse, dog trainer of famous dogs, is not a reliable source? It is obvious this is a frivolous deletion request. Dr.K. 12:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Notes

  1. ^ Brian Kilcommons and Michael Capuzzo. Mutts: America's Dogs. Grand Central Publishing 1996. Quote: the absurdly wonderful Bassetdor, product of an affair between a Basset Hound and a Labrador, who looks like a Lab in a funhouse mirror;
  • Delete, non-notable crossbreed, mention in one book by one author, notable author or not, does not a breed make. -- Corvus cornix (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Google certainly does. Have you Googled Bassador or Bassetdor? These thousands of people can't be all wrong. Too bad we don't want to spend a little bandwidth to write an article about their mutts. Dog elitism does not a good encyclopedia make. -- Dr.K. (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google hits are not notability. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for a fuller explanation. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it isn't a prime argument for notability. But it is an indicator that this breed exists. I was replying to the does not a breed make comment above that seems to deny the existence of the breed. I don't think that we have to establish notability because if the breed is mentioned by the trainer to the stars Kilcommons, that's good enough for me. Now don't get me wrong. I know that I am facing an uphill battle. There seems to be a mindset here that if the dog is not the purest of breeds then there it goes. Under these conditions I cannot do much. But an encyclopedia should respect experts. Kilcommons is a top-notch expert. But if your mind is set against this breed no number of Kilcommonses will suffice. That's the sad truth. -- Dr.K. (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sad corollary to the above is: Wikipedia is no place for mutts. Too bad because Kilcommons wrote a book about the mutts of America and detailed analysis of the individual characteristics of the main mutt breeds. Unfortunately no such specialised and detailed info would be found here if we eliminate this article and all the wonderful world of info it contains, including the top notch citation by an expert in the field and his heartwarming comments about the breed. What's even sadder is that I am writing all this knowing full well that this article appears to be condemned no matter how hard I try or what great arguments exist for its salvage. -- Dr.K. (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would point out that this breed is not recognized by the AKC, or any other kennel club for that matter. Also, I could find any reliable sources that deal with this breed apart from the book mentioned in the article. I also agree with prior precedent from the AFD mentioned above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is it a surprise that AKC doesn't recognise this breed given that AKC is an exclusive pure bred dog club? -- Dr.K. (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bassetdors in popular culture
  • There is a simulated bassetdor pet ready for download for the popular computer game The sims.[1]
Are The sims notable enough? Dr.K. (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orlando Sentinel: A bassetdor appeared in a featured article in the Orlando Sentinel.[2] Dr.K. (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one (from The Sims) is a user's creation, not a component of the game as shipped. The Orlando Sentinel article is from a blog associated from the paper, and it's a trivial reference - all it proves is that the name has been used.

    For this article to survive, the one really important thing it'd need to do is to show that there's a significant community which deliberately breeds dogs of this specification. This is true of the cockapoo and goldendoodle, for example; is it true of the bassetdor? Zetawoof(ζ) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm having this conversation. These terms cockapoo, goldendoodle even bassetdor were completely unknown to me just a few days ago. I just wanted to look up some information about Barbara Woodhouse and now here I am discussing all these strange terms way out of my field. Thanks for your suggestion anyway. I understand where you are coming from, you are obviously an expert in this field and I am not, but why such a high standard? The breed exists. It is a recognisable name. It's got a few citations. Why not just leave it there? I don't think we should impose systematic breeding on top of the notable breed criteria. What do you think? Dr.K. (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Advocate for the underprivileged. My brief stay in this canine section has given me new knowledge and insights about this neck of the Wikipedia woods. I admit even though I have a purebred beagle I am an absolute beginner in the subject of cross breeding, designer dogs, purebred dogs etc. But this is an advantage. Because I can think out of the kennel so to speak. Here is the dilemma. Do we confine ourselves to the regular canine suspects? What about the breeds nobody wants. Yes nobody wants them. No corgis, designer dogs, purebreds etc. here. They also have improbable names. Bassetdors or Bassadors. But they are the (Am)Bassadors for the underprivileged. Brian Kilcommons had a great idea. He was exposed to the dogs of the rich and famous all his adult life. Yet he chose to write a book about mutts. Why? Because as a kid he was rescued emotionally by a mutt. And when he became famous he wrote a book about these amazing creatures with the power to heal. What a story! I was so inspired I wrote the article about him. Not because he was famous but because he found emotional solace with the help of a mutt. Yet the same mutt cannot be represented in an article of its own under the current climate. Sure we can find any number of rules and regulations and quote all kinds of cutoffs so that we snip, cut and eliminate mutt articles here. But at what expense? These mutts exist. By definition no deliberate breeding or designer breeding can happen for them, otherwise they wouldn't be mutts. But mutts exist. And they have stories to tell and cute facts to show. The onus of systematic breeding is not an explicit Wikipedia notability requirement. If Kilcommons wrote a book about mutts to acknowledge their contribution to and place in society, Wikipedia should not be so elitist as to exclude them. Dr.K. (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily agree. And I am very glad we have Mixed-breed dog to address that situation. But there is nothing to verify that this neologism is used by anybody in a reliable source, Corvus cornix (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Corvus for the feedback. It's nice to know people believe in this cause. But isn't Kilcommons or the Sentinel report reliable? Dr.K. (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Sentinel article merely verifies that the word exists, I don't think that's in doubt. And Kilcommons isn't a reliable source, since he made up the word. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus, we are so close yet so far. I won't try to change your mind or argue the point since I know that's your opinion and I respect that. But I don't think Kilcommons invented the term. There is no evidence of that. I think the term diffused somehow in the culture and people accepted it to mean Basset x Labrador. That's the only way a name like that can appear as it cannot possibly be designed by science since no right thinking breeder would purposely cross a Lab with a Basset. Therefore we go back to my original argument that the wonderful and sometimes absurd miracles of nature will neither be accepted, nor given an official name by society. Consequently they will always remain unacknowledged and in the margins of society. Their fate in Wikipedia simply mimics their fate in society. It is some kind of encyclopedic euthanasia for this article. Dr.K. (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it this way: I want to write an article. Where can I find information to write this article from? I need to find reliable sources. Now, then, what relible sources are there that you can write an article about Bassetdors from? The Sentinel mention isn't one. Can you find some? Corvus cornix (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd buy Mutts: America's Dogs (Hardcover) by Kilcommons and get the info from there. Would that be ok? Dr.K. (talk) 01:48, 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 speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wabbitism[edit]

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

Likely a hoax, 7 G results all are either, this page or forums. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:52, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Crimson[edit]

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

This person is not a haver of notability due to the lack of secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The large amount of plot information contained in this article make it not be compliant with WP:NOT#PLOT. Bbwlover 05:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article stays, Blower. Just like all the others. --DlaeThe Freudian Slip 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep You seem to be noming quite a bit of fiction for AfD with very few edits Bbwlover. Gives me a little bit of pause. Æon Insanity Now! 22:46, 21 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→List of characters in Tales of Symphonia. By merging, the creator's concerns about retaining content are addressed. Also by merging, the weak delete opinion is addressed by treating similar articles similarly, noting that 'this article is (not) special' among other related-topic articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Fujibayashi[edit]

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

Fictional video game character without the notability required from the WP:FICT due to the lack of secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Only plot summary with no context outside of the game Bbwlover 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete, this is bad enough in-universe WP:OR WP:CRUFT with complete lack of sources that even I wouldn't make a case for it (I usually side with the crufters). I do want to caution though, that this should really be more appropriately applied to all of Category:Tales of Symphonia characters, all of which come in most the same style. I don't see any reason that this article is special. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an appropriate character list, per the general consensus on WP:VG. User:Krator (t c) 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Same thing I said with the Presea AfD. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as said above (No need to beat a dead horse by putting my opinion in here as I agree with what is said above). Also Jack Cox if you wish this article to be saved then please give a more vaild reasoning for keeping the article as XfD's are not a Vote Æon Insanity Now! 22:58, 21 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) 12:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of SpongeBob SquarePants[edit]

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

No sources or indication why this is important in or outside of the show. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are found This is a Secret account 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Needs sources, desperately. But the main article is too long, which is why this is separate. It is notable. - Rjd0060 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it either meets WP:LIST or it doesn't. I don't see what justifies the second nomination. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you do realize WP:LIST is not an inclusion guide but a style one? Kwsn (Ni!) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO or merge some of the more important content elsewhere.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:IINFO miserably, IMO. Pure cruft (list or fan, take your pick). •97198 talk 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. With some effort, you could squeeze two sentences out of this list for a mention in the main article but that's it. – sgeureka t•c 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how is it notable in the real world? Kwsn (Ni!) 23:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Endless lists of unsourced stock music cues? I shudder. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a lenghty list of info - thus failure of WP:INFO. --JForget 00:58, 21 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 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Krawlers[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax, Google news archive search has nothing. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 05:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (Capcom)[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards set forth in Wikipedia policy of WP:FICT for secondary reliable sources due to lack of secondary reliable sources. Also only is plot information. Wikipedia is not a plot summary Bbwlover 05:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Bbwlover 05:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per FICT and NOT. If it really is important to the game, merge to that article. - Rjd0060 05:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is long overdue. Abyss is not notable other than maybe for being the easiest fighting game end boss of all time. JuJube 06:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect back to Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, the only place where it is relevant, no out-of-universe details to satisfy WP:FICT. The merged text should be cut right down and can then be cited/reworded as necessary. Someone another 07:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge to Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged it for notability as I saw that there were contributors working on it and thought they might be able to show some notability. That hasn't happened and I don't think it will. MLA 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:43, 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 proposed merge target does not exist. Sandstein (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancients (Farscape)[edit]

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

Lacks the notability required of a Wikipedia article because it does not have the reliable secondary sources as noted in WP:FICT. Solely a summary of info found in the series without any reference to the real world seeing WP:NOT#PLOT. Bbwlover 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Bbwlover 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Very weak. First of all, I know!. But all of the "Races and Factions" (listed here have articles. Apparently, they are notable? I am not familiar with this show. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. - Rjd0060 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You remembered WP:WAX, but you may have forgotten WP:ALLORNOTHING. We don't have to deal with all of the problem articles at once. One at a time is acceptable, especially since the availability of sources on one topic doesn't necessarily mean anything about the availability of sources for a related topic. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep for now but prefer Merge into Races in Farscape (the other races should be merged there also). This is one of the three races in Farscape that has a major relevance for the story, and it deserves some mention somewhere. This move would give interested editors time to establish notability, and if they really cannot come up with anything, this can still be deleted. – sgeureka t•c 11:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I know an odd choice, but there is potential for this article to be saved but there is also enough to have it deleted. So I really could go either way on this one. Will wait to see how this discussion plays out before I add another comment. Æon Insanity Now! 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt any independent references exist, certainly none have been added. Fails WP:FICT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It has no reliable sources and is completely original research. "Solely a summary of info found in the series without any reference to the real world . . . ." --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 25 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. W.marsh 14:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated countries, not being able to talk on a phone while driving isn't a notable aspect of any of the countries on the list. Redundant to Mobile phones and driving safety as well, no need for a redirect since "list of places where driving while talking on a mobile phone is illegal " is an unlikely search term. Masaruemoto 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be merge not a delete. ---- Neon white (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified it now -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant as mentioned above. shoy (words words) 18:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as described above. I agree with nom that this is too unlikely a search term for a redirect. Mandsford (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The law is vast and constantly changing. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bearian is right on that, although I still favor a merge. This is one of the few occasions where it can correctly be said that the information is "unmaintainable", simply because it's not likely that any one nation's enactment of a cellphone ban would get much notice. While a merge isn't out of the question, it should carry with it a disclaimer. Mandsford (talk) 01:29, 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 as apparent hoax. DS (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob the Messiah[edit]

May be legit, but the source of the material cannot be found (no Google hits). VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in that case, looks like a nonsense hoax that someone made up on the spot.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably a hoax. I cannot find anything via google/yahoo. - Rjd0060 05:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree; an apparent hoax. • Lawrence Cohen 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dont rush on this one--needs expert attention--there have historically been many false Messiahs, so this might be one of them. I notified the Judaism Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete seems to me to be a hoax. There is no mention in the Jewish Encyclopedia PSEUDO-MESSIAHS which list many obscure false messiahs. Jon513 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No complete citation in any event, no corroboration in standard reference works on the subject of Jewish Messiah claimants, and the alleged reference to a "Sefer Ha-Kaifungi" is not a complete citation, is uncorroborated, and appears a hoaxish pidgin of Chinese and Hebrew. "ung" is not a Hebrew dipthong and it is unlikely a genuine transliteration of a Hebrew work would have such a pronunciation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was unable to find the book in the Library of Congress online catalog. --Eliyak T·C 09:43, 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 no consensus (non-admin closing debate). Seraphim Whipp 21:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rosenthal[edit]

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

Delete article does not establish notability. Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN Strothra 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Article seems to assert notability, but is unsourced. Edward321 04:17, 14 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 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd imagine that anyone holding that position would at least be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but sources are needed.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That position doesn't make him notable - there are many many mid-level political appointees, not all of them are notable per WP:BIO. Also, he no longer has the position as Clinton is no longer in office. His lack of notability is furthered by the fact that beyond his brief time in that position, google comes up with nothing regarding his activities. --Strothra 14:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above comments (the person's job). Is a stub, obviously, and needs sourcing and if possible, expansion. - Rjd0060 05:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - As per comments of h i s -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I see no reason why this particular position should be notable, unless someone can explain it. DGG (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good improvement. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Ross (painter)[edit]

Jerry Ross (painter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - orphaned WP:COI article. Started by SPA User:Pittore whose only contributions have been to this article. Also multiple edits by User:Rossjerry. Note that these combine to form the name of the artist's website. Subject does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Otto4711 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that a SPA user created this doesn't alter notability. The subject is clearly notable and has third party sources Decoratrix 04:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per new references. Modernist 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as notable and can be verified by almost 200,000 Ghits. Bearian 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let's not forget that GHITS in and of themselves do not establish notability (nor do they prove the opposite either, in and of themselves). However, it must be noted that the 200,000 GHITS (actually 197,000) are not all for this Jerry Ross alone, so the number mentioned is a bit over-stated. Reliable, third-party sources are necessary to establish notability, and so far I have not seen any. freshacconcispeaktome 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The author should be allowed time to establish notability by citing reliable, third-party sources necessary to establish notability. Have you read the discussion by noted art historian Clarice Zdanski ?(see discussion tab) [[User:Pittore] 14:25, 12 November 2007. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossjerry (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that references were added to the article after the above comments. --W.marsh 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Per the recent changes. Seems notable, as partially evident from the GHits, and it is sourced, now. - Rjd0060 05:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the current version. • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per current version -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still disturbed by the issue of WP:COI, as the major contributor to this article is Rossjerry and his sockpuppet Pittore (see his "keep" !vote above, which was "signed" by Pittore using Rossjerry's account). At this point, all I see is a minor local artist who is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote himself (judging from the sources provided, he is not an internationally recognized artist beyond some minor exhibitions in Italy). freshacconcispeaktome 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but verify the hell out of the article due to WP:COI. Based on the sources, he appears notable through verifiable reliable sources. spryde | talk 14:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: SSP case opened here. shoy (words words) 18:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:My goodness, in art "notability" is an awfully subjective term. The statements are now sourced, and I will tell you that within Western Oregon at least, the artist is notable. Oregondave2 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see any listings of works in major museum--perhaps i missed it among all the self-promotion.DGG (talk) 04:15, 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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Nation[edit]

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

Unverifiable article on a non-notable musician. The 17 unique ghits, after removing blogs, shows nothing. The sources given are mostly from the subject's website and don't particularly count. MER-C 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: For now. The nomination was a mere 5 hours after creation. Well written article that does need some work, particularly with sourcing, however, I think notability has been established, so lets give it some time to add some verifiability. - Rjd0060 05:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly. No prejudice against recreation if he becomes notable, but there are no independent sources showing that anyone else has written about him in non-trivial ways, and the citations don't verify the text - they are mere links to websites' homepages not mentioning him. Obviously non-notable when you take a look at the references.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article refers to multiple sources, though might need some future cleanup. This host is also a well-known figure in about 20 states and also internationally, partially by his alias Kaleb Krew. - unsigned edit by Muskara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the article's creator). 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is that well known, why don't any of the people who know him write about him? -- Jreferee t/c 14:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable independent sources. The majority of the Google hits for Kaleb Nation are blog guestbook entries. Kaleb Krew appears syndicated on many web radio sites, but the test for notability is not mere occurrence, but reliably published third-party sources about someone. -- Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. I live in Kaleb Nation's hometown and have never heard of him; also, the local alt weekly has no mention of him, even under "Kaleb Krew". Weak Google hits, no independent sources, etc. I want to point out that Muskara, above, created the article and I suspect, though can't verify, has a conflict of interest. Paxsimius (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did a search and could not find even one reliable independent source containing even one mention of his name. I also searched for information on Kaleb Krew and did not find even one reliable independent source. Google books doesn't bring up anything. Google scholar doesn't bring up anything.-- Jreferee t/c 14:55, 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. W.marsh 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wired for Books[edit]

Wired for Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Wired for Books.

See Also→ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#wiredforbooks.org Hu12 02:24, 9 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 04:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not seem notable and there aren't any sources for any of this information. - Rjd0060 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Pending better references. Despite the "spam" issues, which are separate, I don't think kudos from the National Endowment for the Humanities is anything to sneeze at and confers some notability, especially if the award has been mentioned in a third-party source. I'll see if I can find anything today. Katr67 16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a ref for the NEH award and added it. Question, do any of the awards mentioned in the article count as "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." per WP:WEB? I think NEH is close--it's independent, not sure how well-known it is. The RealNetworks award might count as well, but it is so old by 'net standards that the only references I can now find to it are linked to press releases from Ohio U. -- Katr67 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alone the citation still doesn't satify the full guidlines for having an article. although is a plus.---- Hu12 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the NEH award is enough.DGG (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Wired for Books was included just last week in PC Magazine's "Best of the Internet" column (November 20, 2007 issue). Also, New York Public Library selected Wired for Books as "Best of the Web." For a more complete record of the recognitions the site has received, visit the site at wiredforbooks.org . As for conflict of interest, some Wikipedia editors seem to be punishing authors for being upfront and honest about who they are and what they are writing about. Does anyone really believe that large corporations are not writing and funding their product and service Wikipedia articles through third parties? The current situation is so bad, that if it continues, it will permanently damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Sincerely, David Kurz, [email protected] , Producer of Wired for Books, a noncommercial educational project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University.— Dkurz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Travb (talk) 18:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of B-movie directors and actors[edit]

List of B-movie directors and actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research based list, so violates WP:NOR. The criterion is people "associated with B movies". What level of association with B movies does an actor need before they are added to the list? And how is an association with B movies measured? And who decides what the level is? Theoretically, this could include every actor who has ever appeared in a B movie, which would be thousands. Unworkable and unmaintainable. Masaruemoto 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom (OR). Pointless list IMO. - Rjd0060 05:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what "indiscriminate information" is all about-- a list of names, with no clue as to why they're on the list. Even if it were made less boring by examples of the "B-movies" that the persons were in (Mark Hammill was in the immortal Corvette Summer, which was re-released after Star Wars), it's all original research anyway. Interesting OR is unencylopedic. But bORing OR is a crime. Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since even important actors may take roles in B-movies, it is likely the list would merely become a list of every actor who has ever lived. Furthermore, who decides which are B-movies? It sounds like a POV classification. Too broad and thus unmaintainable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 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. GRBerry 04:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joesph llovet[edit]

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

Delete article about a boxer with two wins but without notability Carlossuarez46 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable boxer. - Rjd0060 05:24, 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 and Transwiki to Wiktionary--JForget 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of paintball terms[edit]

Glossary of paintball terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Until its wiktionary entry is cleaned up and brought up to par. That includes fixing the title of the wiktionary entry so that its actually findable. The Wikipedia policy is clear about dictionaries and lists of slang, but there are several legitimate paintball-only terms in there that don't fit in the main paintball article either. The wiktionary entry exists, but it needs to be renamed, and some terms need to be added and deleted. Once that occurs, then my vote is Delete. --Donutmonger 04:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just copied over the most recent content to Wiktionary, and changed the link in the Paintball template to direct there. I'm changing my vote to Delete. --Donutmonger 10:44, 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 per improvements by Metropolitan90. Davewild (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Whites[edit]

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

Unsourced article of questionable notability -- JeffBillman 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close not for MfD. JuJube 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Merge some into University of Northern Colorado if it is important to the school, otherwise it isn't notable, so delete. - Rjd0060 05:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The "Fighting Whites" is the only notable intramural sports team I can think of (due to their involvement in the Native American mascot controversy). Numerous sources are available to show the national media attention they received; I will add some sources to the article before the AfD period ends unless someone else does that first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per met90's edits. Article is no longer unsourced and demonstrates that the subject passes significant coverage. Also had a few other appearances in national media, the Tom Leykis show being one that was particularly amusing. Horrorshowj (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Metro90 has added sources and their involvement in the mascot controversy shows notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:43, 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 Keep. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interac (Japan)[edit]

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

The company fails WP:ORG, and fails to show why it is notable. Delete J 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per the nom; fails to assert notability. - Rjd0060 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no reason to delete, not written like an ad, 1 500 foreigners use the service to teach in Japan (establishes notability), this is the third time that the same editor has tried to delete the article. --Ckatzchatspy 05:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article has not been written like an ad and certainly seems notable. "Interac Japan" on Google results in 1,220,000 hits, which sufficiently indicates notability. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled "Interac Japan" and found 614 hits. Significantly less than your 1, 220,000. I doubt you used quotation marks around your search terms, so google found anything with the letters *interac* and *Japan*. An example is an article on MECHANISM OF INHIBITION OF REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE BY QUINONE ANTIBIOTICS from the Japan Journal of Antibiotics that has the word *interaction* in the article. The question then, is 614 hits enough for notability? DDD DDD (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not a valid point - the company's name isn't "Interac Japan", so restricting the search to that phrase doesn't accurately reflect the number of hits. (As evidenced by the fact that the fourth hit under that combination is Dustinasby's Wikipedia talk page.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but keeping the search open to *interac japan* allows for any page with interacts, interacted, interactive and interaction to be included in the pages found. That makes the search terms too broad. It also includes pages with references to ATM/interac. Further, the second page I found on google when I search was a page for a child kidnapped by his mother and step-father, the latter who works with Interac, Japan. Quite unrelated. And so on. The google numbers are inflated and all of them are not related to the company as you/we would hope. I just don't think a quick google count is a guide to notability. My nickname "DDD DDD" gets 128,000 google hits. Time for a new wiki article, me thinks! Sorry Ckatz, you only get 9, 830. DDD DDD (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true for any search term on Google. As editors, we have to use our discretion to sift through the results. Artificially limiting the search through the use of an inaccurate phrase such as "Interac Japan" is not the proper way to go. --Ckatzchatspy 11:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, we shouldn't artificially defend our argument, by saying there are 1,220,000 hits for Interac, a company that subcontracts out foreigners to schools, when we search interac japan. Because that is false.DDD DDD (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you are not happy with number of ghits for "Interac Japan". Ok lets try "Interac Japan ALT" which yielded 65000 hits on Google. Interac has also been mentioned in atleast two published books, as seen here. This company is definitely notable. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to belabour the point but a google search is not the be all, end all. I also searched as you suggested, Interac+Japan+ALT, and there were indeed almost 65,000 hits. And indeed, many (not all) of those links were connected to Interac, the ALT outsourcing agency. Did you actually have a look at any of those 65,000 hits? They are not thousands and thousands of articles written about the company. Most of those links are to outdated viral job advertisements on blogs, lists, scraper sites, and so on, around the world. If anything, Interac is good at spreading the word. The gospel of the ALT according to Interac. I also only found one book reference (Gambatter means go for it...) but that was simply of list of places, companies, programmes that hire teachers. One of many. Hardly notable. Show me good, well-referenced published articles... ないと思う。DDD DDD (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've just spent the good part of the day searching through the google hits to find some reliable sources. I found a few links to the union websites and blogs. That's it. We're left with scraper sites and old jobs ads. Someone, please, anyone, point me in the direction of a reliably sourced article or website that discusses Interac, its relationships with its employees and contracted schools, the roles it plays in the Japanese education system, how its teachers work/interact with the schools and students... Please. I'm begging here. Is there anything out there. Or is it just blogs and job ads. How is it that a company that supposedly employs 1000+ employees in Japanese schools flies completely under the radar?DDD DDD (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't sarcastic, but instead a serious question: have you tried searching in Japanese? (I can't, and if you can't, I mean no offence - it's just that we're probably using the wrong version of Google to find relevant materials.) --Ckatzchatspy —Preceding comment was added at 09:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a good idea. (But what is the point of using Japanese language sources for the English article?) Anyway, so I just searched for "インタラック" which is the name I took from the Japanese webpage of the company. I used the Japanese version of google to search. There were 628 hits. Here is the search page results. The first two were from the company itself. The 3rd was for a company from New Zealand called Interluck. The 4th through 6th were blogs. The 7th was from the General Union. The 8th was for Interluck, again. The 9th and tenth pages won't open. And so on.
So, the article claims more than one thousand foreign teachers work there. This came from the company's website. No independent, third party sources, in English or Japanese can be found. Now, I know I have gone on and on about this... No one has found 3rd party sources other than union papers and blogs of teachers/formers teachers critical of the company. I have argued, quite vigourously in favour of deleting the article. I would be willing to compromising on moving what exists of the article to the article on Assistant Language Teacher, as long as we can get some 3rd party sources. Any takers? Any defenders of the article willing to help out?DDD DDD (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Employing over 1,000 foreign teachers in Japan alone makes this company pretty notable. --DAJF 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- this is actually the fourth time the nominator has tried to delete this article, an overturned speedy, two contested prods, now this-I am now calling this what it is-extremely bad faith nom by GreenJoe, and I wonder what the agenda is. Chris 06:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So many foreigners work at Interac. I hardly see what is notable about that. As is, the article reads like the companies own webpage - an advertisement? Also, simply because GreenJoe has nominated it several times for deletion does NOT mean imply bad faith. It's quite possible that the article just does not belong here.DDD DDD 07:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - After vigourously arguing for a week that the article should be deleted, I'm having great doubts. The fact that there is so little information available about a company that does indeed plays such a large role in the education system here in Japan is troubling.DDD DDD (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. I don't see how taking a contested prod to AfD is bad faith. It's the next logical step as I see it. Handschuh-talk to me 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company seems to have an interesting history and possibly some interesting current ties. I found some links through a blog[38] but didn't add the blog itself to the article. The sources I added seem to me to be reasonable. I'd say this is a notable company. ---- Busy Stubber (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has become a leading source of information partially because of the speed at which information (on just about anything) can be obtained. Someone with the goal of teaching English in Japan would likely want information on the various ways this can be achieved. The page sounds an awful lot like the company's website because that is where I got my information. Rather than deleting the entire work, why not improve the content? Honestly I'm getting tired of having to defend spreading access to information... It's truly enough to make one not want to contribute.--Dustin Asby (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Addendum: "Notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance.'"[reply]
Content improvement depends on you and me and other editors. Keep at it! :-) --Busy Stubber (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain The company sounds as if it may be notable, but i dont see a single real 3rd party source for it. DGG (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many universities list this company for ESL jobs in Japan, but here are some that list Interac Japan [39] [40] [41] [42] Here are university staff who include Interac Japan in their professional credentials.[43] [44] The Consulate-General of Japan in San Francisco lists Interac Japan.[45] The company is privately-held and doesn't publish much information, apparently. I wonder if there might be more information on Japanese-language websites. I don't know Japanese. --Busy Stubber (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does a vague job recruitment ad qualify as a 3rd party reference?DDD DDD (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it does, but I'm assuming that universities make an effort to ensure that the companies that they suggest to graduates are reputable and respectable companies. By what measure, I don't know. But universities I think are generally considered reliable sources. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the size of the company is large compared to other companies that are providing the same services in the same country, then it may merit an article. However, it is not a huge company in Japan when compared to others that provide similar services (unless you read it's own advertisements). If the determination is strictly on the size of the company, without comparison to other companies, then I would say even by this means, it doesn't merit an article.--GUIB Corrector (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been very candid about being an employee of Interac, and that's greatly appreciated. It might be best if you don't participate in this discussion. There seems to be a history of trying to delete this topic from Wikipedia. Sometimes small organizations are actually quite influential or notable within their specialties. I think you can cross your comments and mine out by putting <s> before your opinion and </s> after the end of this comment I'm making, if you decide to do that. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a criteria for not participating. Don't bite the newcomers. J (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COI is a guideline, and I just made a suggestion to an inexperienced editor, not a demand. It's up to him. --Busy Stubber (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to all the points above, Interac Japan does not even have an article in Japanese, the language of the country where it is active. This seems to me to be very telling of this company's lack of "notability". It's "parent company" also has no article in either English or Japanese. Malnova (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep English language education in Japan is a substantial topic which unfortunately hasn't yet fully been developed on WP yet. Interac's position as a large supplier of ALT's to Japanese high schools puts them in close proximity to the overall subject and a loss of the article represents a loss of information about English language education in Japan and by that a loss of information about Japan itself. That the company 'Interac' is involved in the unique and (as far as my research indicates) incomparable second language education system makes the company notable ipso facto. I strongly feel that the closing admin should consider the multiple AFD attempts by the nominator. For profit companies like Interac, who operate in the educational sphere, covet censorship externally and more importantly internally.Statisticalregression (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add that I was able to find an article in Japanese from the Yomiuri Shimbun (which I think is rated as having the highest distribution of any newspaper on the planet) and only took me 1 minute. The article is about ALT's in Japanese schools, and that the number of ALT's that are dispatched from private compaines such as Interac is on the rise. The article specificanlly mentions interac see here: [46] again I say Keep as the company and is notable as is the industry it is in. Statisticalregression (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the very reason that Interac refuses to give interviews with the media such as NHK TV in Japan. Yes, there was a nation-wide report on Interac and their illegal use of ALTs with their outsourcing contracts as well as not enrolling employees into National Health Insurance. Here's a transcript, in English, of that NHK report. But Interac refused to be interview, as always. http://www.letsjapan.org/?q=nhk-report-on-problems-with-alt-dispatch-companies.html Wanzhen (talk) 23:33, 21 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 Pern. There is not currently sufficient reliable sourcing for the article on Mark to exist independently. Xoloz (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark (Pern)[edit]

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

Delete - no reliable sources attest to the notability of this particular aspect of the Pern series. Prod disputed by editor noting the existence of other fictional currency articles but the existence of other articles does not serve to justify this article. Otto4711 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't belive this meets notability requirements. If it is important to the book(s), then merge to the appropriate article. - Rjd0060 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Pern, as far is as relevant to the article without undue weight about its currency.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge as a new section in the main Pern article. I see no reason to delete it. What makes that any less worthy than other Pern articles? Marks are frequently mentioned in the books. Nik42 07:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:49, 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. Davewild (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Joe Lovell[edit]

Monty Joe Lovell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. High school football coach; no indication that he is notable by Wikipedia's standards. 66 Google results for "Monty Joe Lovell" and 9 for "Monty Lovell". I'm bringing the article to AfD instead of prod'ding it because it's been around for a couple of months. ... discospinster talk 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete I've seen these cases before, non-notable. --Astroview120mm 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable person, per BIO. There isn't even an article on the school he coached at (hint, hint). - Rjd0060 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a sports coach/teacher at school level is definitely not a notable thing, no matter how many notable people he helped throughout the years (notability is not inherited).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong do as you wish. Despite any assumptions to the contrary, the schools do exist and the facts are indisputable. The claim that a teacher/coach at 'school level' is 'definitely' non-notable is strictly opinion. There have been many that have deserved to be 'noted'. However, if it is the desire of the majority to delete, then so be it. It doesn't discount the accomplishments. ;-) BTW, I was not notified of this action by the initiate. I could have been contacted at the talk page. That would have been nice. -- User:Ky1958User talk:Ky1958 08:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were notified on your talk page, here. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated previously, que sera sera...you're the editor. I'm sure you will make the right choice. :-) talk 10:51, 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. There may be a time in the future when this individual comic merits its own article; that time is not now, before its release. Deletion succeeds per strength of argument. Xoloz (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Sunset[edit]

A Beautiful Sunset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I cannot fathom why we need an entire article on a single issue of a comic that isn't even released yet. Phil Sandifer 02:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable now. JJL 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable now, and probably won't be notable then. We'll see. - Rjd0060 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If it had been published, I'd say merge the information into Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, of which this is a part. Since there's already adequate mention there, this article can be deleted. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too premature for existence as an article (yet). • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be too early to exist now, but later on it should fall under WP:EPISODE ruling, its medium notwithstanding.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This marks the introduction of the main villain within the current "season". That should grant it a significant place within the comic. We already have plenty of articles for unreleased films, television, music and prose. Comics should be no different.--Pushsense (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're not - we have many articles on upcoming series. But the norm with comics is not to have an article on every issue to begin with. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do have articles on single issues of major series if it can be shown that the issue is significant to the series as a whole. All indications show that this issue will be.--Pushsense (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently one of the biggest selling comics in the world even rivalling Marvel & DC publications which traditionally dominate the market, and the series has buzz across the media including having had articles in magazines as high profile as Entertainment Weekly. Continue to improve and gradually add use of sources as release date approaches. - Paxomen (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Last month Buffy was the 9th best-selling comic. But we don't have articles on individual issues of the other 8. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do. See The Chain (Buffy comic)
        • He's referring to idividual X-Men and JLA stuff. We don't have an article for "Thy Kingdom Come", although we do have one for arcs like "The Lightning Saga" and "X-Men: Endangered Species" though.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't be certain about X-Men, but I'm fairly sure we have a couple of articles on individual JLAs. We definitely do have articles for individual Batmans and Supermans, as mentioned earlier. In any case, whether to keep the article should be decided by content, not length. The current solicitation info suggests this will be a significant issue.--Pushsense (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As long as the article is fleshed out with real world infromation about conceptual histories, writing technique, artistic input, fan/critical reaction/analyses and sales then each of these articles has potential for GA article, as do several Buffy episodes (although none of progressed the way some Lost/Simpsons articles have).~ZytheTalk to me! 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:09, 20 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. WP:SNOW case. PeaceNT (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madoaism[edit]

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

Author removed PROD tag (with no explanation given), both Google and Yahoo return nothing for this. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author removed PROD tag because he misunderstood the proposition of saving the article. He is sorry for that. Yahoo and Google probably do not return it because Madaoism is a small religion containing only about 4 to 5 thousand peoples, the majority of which live in Greece. I wouldn't be surprised if the Author was the only Madaoist with a computer. Madore99 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Smells like a hoax. ... discospinster talk 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable, with zero hits. Could be a hoax, or a little known neologism. - Rjd0060 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete per both of the responses to the nominator.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax Phil Bridger 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. JuJube 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – it should be obvious from the lead paragraph that it's a hoax, even if the creator has planted references on Urbandictionary and Livejournal. Note also that the article alleges murder by Jesse Madore, who may be a real living person; see the Jesse Madore article created by the same user. EALacey (talk) 23:22, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draenor[edit]

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

This fictional planet is just full of plot summaries and unnotable fancruft.

The article is unnotable to people who do not play the game. WP:CRUFT applies. This is not a plot summary area it is an encyclopedia. Bbwlover 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Bbwlover 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is cruft. So, if it is important to the game, then merge it there. If it isn't, just delete it. - Rjd0060 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has nothing in it because of its lack of notability. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficiently long to warrant a separate article. Everyking (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being fictional, containing plot summary, and having fancruft are not valid reasons for deletion according to actual policies and guidelines. And whether or not the nominator has any interest in the article has nothing to do with it's being notable. Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fictional world has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Warcraft canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very important part of the Warcraft universe, with the Warcraft games being very notable. CRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. There is too much in this article to merge without either losing important information or bloating another article past reason, so I'd oppose a merge as well. -- Atamasama 18:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak (Very Weak) Delete The Article in question could stand a massive clean up and could be made to conform to Wikipedia Standards but as it stands right now it is not encyclopedic. I also agree however that merging this article would be determental to other warcraft related articles. Æon Insanity Now! 23:05, 21 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 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artifact (computer game)[edit]

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

Delete this was deleted before and now it's back, still basically unsourced, still basically sounding like a how-to guide, still minimal context, and still nothing demonstrating the notability of the subject. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above.--Astroview120mm 03:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No context, no assertion of notability. The game might end up notable (or might be notable - it could be 20 years old for all I know, from reading the article), but even if an article were justified - unlikely though that may be - the article in its current form is not salvageable. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above (notability, and how-to). - Rjd0060 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failes the notability standards currently. • Lawrence Cohen 06:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears nn.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:34, 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. (Non admin closure). —Qst 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authorize.Net[edit]

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

procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD 2006-03-19 when article resided at Authorize.net; deleted several times in the interim and finally re-nominated via PROD. 2006 PROD action was accompanied by the statement: "fails WP:CORP". Recent re-PROD came with the statement: "Seems to fail WP:CORP, at original name Authorize.net article has been deleted four times". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm only seeing 3 deletions (may be more under a variant of spelling), but it doesn't appear to be notable. - Rjd0060 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, did a Google search on this (Authorize net) found about 2M results including news.com, netcraft, zdnet, Monster, just to name a few. I think that should pass WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I did a osCommerce implementation last year and used the Authorize.Net gateway. I think it is the third or fourth biggest payment gateway in the world. It should not have been nominated. scope_creep (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obvious candidate for inclusion to anyone familiar with the industry, if anything, this article should be expanded and updated. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have rewritten this article to better reflect their status as a company in their industry. Considering they were just purchased for $565 million I'd say they are definitely worth inclusion.stymiee (talk) 01:40, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Entreri[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Unreferenced article is written completely inuniverse, no secondary sources available for this character -- failure to meet WP:N Bbwlover 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete need more evidence of notability--how many books was the char. in? Why is he notable? JJL 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If important to the book, merge. Doesn't assert any notability though. - Rjd0060 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. -- Jay32183 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A very notable character, the main antagonist, and then protagonist from more than ten books. (with which of them would you merge him?) I've added some references to book reviews where character is described.

Comment: The war waged on D&D characters seems to me pointless and biased - why all the major D&D characters are nominated for deletion, while no one cares, for example, about cartoon characters, even such minor as Vladimir Goudenov Grizzlikof?Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beans, man, Beans. ◄Zahakiel► 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX, The existence, or lack thereof, of any other page has no impact on the this discussion. Those pages to which you're referring might need to be deleted too. Jay32183 (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point is not "What about X?" but rather, "Why start with the more notable characters instead of with the less notable ones? Powers T 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference. There isn't more or less notable on Wikipedia. Either there is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic, or there isn't. The condition of any other article is irrelevant in this discussion, unless a merger is proposed. In that case only the condition of the target suggested would matter in the discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one's saying the comment was necessarily relevant to the specific question under discussion here; that's why it was labeled "Comment" instead of with "keep" or "delete". Powers T 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Garret Beaumain. As for the cartoon characters, they just haven't gotten to them yet, but they will. ➳ Quin 15:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guy is in several best-selling novels. A non-notable character wouldn't move from being an enemy in someone elses' books to getting his own books, would he? If the article is flawed, fix it, don't delete it. It's in-universe? Then re-write it, don't nominate for deletion. That's stupid. Howa0082 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - To answer the question of an editor above (from the article in question): ten well-known, full-length novels, four short stories, three video games. There has to be a point at which common sense presumes (taken from WP:N) an obvious notability beyond mere subjective editors' judgments. If secondary sources are the sticking-point, I don't think it is very clever to take the position that these sources do not exist at all, simply because this article hasn't yet received the necessary attention. As a major antagonist of another well-known and referenced character, it is entirely unreasonable to suppose that these same sources do not make significant mention of this one also. Article needs cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 17:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good sourcing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as per Zahakiel. Edward321 (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - major Forgotten Realms villain, appeared in The Crystal Shard, Streams of Silver, The Halfling's Gem, The Legacy, and Starless Night. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't mean secondary sources are available. Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Sources providing real world context are require, and there's no indication that such sources exist. Jay32183 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Powers T 00:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry but this is one of the MAIN villians in this series and as his own series. Has notibility as he series is fairly popular and well know. Æon Insanity Now! 22:58, 20 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 Concensus Some of the Keep arguments are weak and if the article is not cleaned up with reliable sources added then this will probably be revisited and deleted. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Ren and Stimpy[edit]

Music of Ren and Stimpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources or indication why this is important in or outside of the show. Mr.Z-man 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clean up - This is a tough one. It's too large to merge into the Ren and Stimpy main article, and the three albums at the end are definite keepers per WP:MUSIC#Albums - maybe even enough to have separate articles. I think the "Music written for the show" section is sufficiently notable, but I don't know about the other two sections. Probably not. Torc2 01:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless - if reliable sources can be found for the section on music written for the show, then get rid of everything in the article except that section and properly source it (or merge it to the main show article). There is no reason at all to have redundant sections on the soundtrack albums when they all have their own articles already. All of the material on non-original songs and song cues used in the show is not encyclopedic per any number of precedents. Songs in general do not become notable simply for having been used in a TV show and lists of such songs have been deleted for multiple other shows. Otto4711 03:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Partly per MUSIC. Needs some cleanup, obviously, but definite keep. Also, to point out the shows' articles are too long already, so this needs its own article. - Rjd0060 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically what secion of WP:MUSIC do you believe allows for this article as it currently exists? Otto4711 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not specifically allowed or forbidden, but since the list includes songwriters, it's somewhat analogous to number 10 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." and as a whole is comparable to Albums: "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (I'm referring to the first and last section of the article only). Torc2 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - take a look at the article and note the section which is most unwieldy, large and pointless. It's the "production music" list. Take it out and the only large-ish section becomes the "classical music" section. the next largest (and one which other editors have said is important) is the "music written for the show" section, which is not actually all that long. If you take away the "production music" list and reduce that section to two paragraphs, the article isn't that long and all that needs done is a little bit of tidying up around the "classical" and "written for" sections. voila, you got yourself a decent article.
  • Keep: Too large to be integrated into the show's main article, and relevant enough to keep. A number of people point out the creative use of classical (stock) music of the show (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/11/confessions_of_a_classical_sad.html), so there is some justification for the article's existence. Seriously, there are 25 articles listing all imaginable Pokemons; why not keep one article about a relevant aspect of a pretty influential show. -- 145.116.9.223 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the word blogs in the address of your source. Blogs are not reliable sources. Even if they were, the blog post would not serve as justification for a list of every single snippet of music ever used in an episode. as for the Pokemon articles, well, WP:POKEMON. Pokemon articles are required to meet the same standards as any other article, and pointing at them (or any other article) and saying what about that doesn't serve to prove that this article meets those standards. Otto4711 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Music is a big part of the show, and deserves to be its own separate article. If the production music section is a big problem, we could always greatly shrink that section so that it only consists of general info on production music, and then link to my web page where I've copied all the info. If someone happens to find the names of more APM tracks, they could let everyone know in the Discussion section and I'd add them to my web site. Sb2007 (talk) 05:29, 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. He is already mentioned in the related articles and there is no other sourced component to merge.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wakefield[edit]

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

Fails WP:N A good faith effort to find references found some blog mentions and passing reference in articles about other people, nothing found to meet WP:BIO. Contested Prod Jeepday (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As it stands the article contains no reliable sources and is original research. the_undertow talk 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. Not really notable, and article does consist of OR. - Rjd0060 04:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or merge any sourcable content to relevant article(s).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge any sourcable content to relevant article(s). Victuallers (talk) 20:56, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Hotel (New Jersey)[edit]

Ambassador Hotel (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination This was in the WP:PROD deletion path; the deletion nomination was declined, then the PROD template re-added by a different editor. The first PROD nomination was accompanied by the statement: "No references, nothing suggesting notability". The second PROD nomination was accompanied by the statement: "No assertion of notability". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sorry, I don't see any notability. Given that the building was demolished, if it were imploded, that probably caught the attention of local news, but that really isn't enough for WP standards. - Rjd0060 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to have been a locally endeared ruin in the recent past, but it was not on the National Register or any other landmark list, and the only substantial reference I found was a photo and caption in a history of Asbury Park. Googling all three names (Palace Hotel and Park Roosevelt Hotel were the others) comes up bupkis. Google News Archive has some trivial mentions, like somebody dying there. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real mention of notability for this particular hotel. The Asbury Park, New Jersey article mentions that there's a group of hotels that have either been demolished or are in line to be demolished, so maybe it would be more worthwhile to mention the hotels in that article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the city's onetime resort status I wouldn't be surprised if there were dozens of hotels about this size. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chengyue[edit]

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

A good faith search for references found only mirrors and links to mirrors. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Contested prod Jeepday (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified despite Jeepday's effort. Handschuh-talk to me 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too little context; that is unverifiable context. - Rjd0060 04:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article as it stands provides less than rudimentary information and we have nothing to lose by deleting it, and could be a hoax which we're better off without altogether. If you want to write an article, cite your sources and make it a bit longer than this at the very least.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's possible there are few or even no sources in English, but there are in Chinese, and it's hard to look it up without knowing how to write his name in Chinese characters. However, I see he isn't included in zh:Category:明朝詩人, the Chinese category of Ming dynasty poets, or zh:中国历代诗人列表#明代, a list of Ming dynasty poets. He wasn't in my big Chinese-English dictionary that includes most of the "we learned about him in school" people from Chinese history. I don't know where else to look so I'd have to say delete at least until some reliable sources in some language are found. Also, note that the contributor (69.236.36.90 (talk · contribs))'s only other edits were vandalism to Milpitas Unified School District, in California (around the same time), so it's not improbable this is some California schoolkid joke that has survived on Wikipedia for two years, while Wikipedia claims not to be for things made up in school one day. In which case, good catch, Jeepday. (If nothing substantiating is found, be sure to delete the entry in the List of Chinese language poets, the only mainspace oncoming link.) Rigadoun (talk) 08:52, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zul'Aman[edit]

Zul'Aman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no references but one preview from a game magazine, makes no attempts at establishing notability, and is written entirely as a game guide; not an encyclopedia article. -- Atamasama 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and crufty. Handschuh-talk to me 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable. If it is important to Warcraft Universe, then merge it. - Rjd0060 04:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notable for some "list of locations in the warcraft universe" (i'm sure something like that exists), not for an own place in the article namespace. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notabiliy. Pagrashtak 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough for its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I created the article and I think it should be deleted. Admitedly I created it as a Redirect to 'List of Warcraft locations', which has since been deleted so this article was expanded. Honestly people, I created List of Warcraft Locations, List of Warcraft Characters, List of Warcraft Organizations and spent days merging all the fancruft, now that those articles were deleted we are going to get a deluge of these articles again. - UnlimitedAccess (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 Pedro :  Chat  09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Cleaver Theatre[edit]

Meet Cleaver Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A blatant advertisement for a non-notable web television show. The notabiltiy tags have been up for months with no improvements at all. No assertion of notability or importance and no references. IrishGuy talk 01:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. the_undertow talk 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: No assertion. - Rjd0060 04:48, 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 Delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HackCam[edit]

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

First nomination here. This was in 2005. It's 2007 now and I do not believe this meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. It is unverifiable for the most part and has a lack of reliable sources - especially secondary sources. The utility has yet to be released to the public, and the article admits a lack of coverage. Therefore, I feel it should be deleted. Crystallina 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't appear notable. If it is important to the game, merge into the Half-Life article (but that article is awfully long as it is). - Rjd0060 04:50, 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 as spam for software with no assertion of notability. Creator with obvious WP:COI indefblocked. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showbeyond[edit]

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

Article, does not assert notability, and has been created at least 4 times. Delete and Salt VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:14, 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. While the list is in better shape than its already deleted counterpart, the problem of source reliability has not been addressed. Moreover, the support for a cause is not considered a defining characteristic for a group or list of people, while vice versa there are doubts how such a list of supporters (especially taken by itself, but to some extent also in combination with one of opponents) assists us in covering a controversial topic without bias. While a deletion review might shed further light on this issue, it is not a default action unless there are actual concerns that separate lists are needed apart from the existing articles about PETA and the respective individuals --Tikiwont (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of supporters of PETA[edit]

List of supporters of PETA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Re-nominating this for deletion per precedent of List of opponents of PETA, which was deleted 2 days ago. WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people, being an supporter of PETA isn't a defining characteristic so this is a loose association to group people by. Also, this list is almost exclusively referenced by one biased and unreliable source: PETA itself. Delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD in August 2006, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable supporters of PETA. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator of the article, as long as the info isn't merged back into the main article (from which it was extracted for NPOV and length concerns). If the info is to be reintegrated into the article, then keep instead.--Ramdrake 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate list; if someone's support for PETA is particularly notable, it's better discussed in that person's biography. szyslak 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Isn't this the list I said I'd nominate myself if List of opponents of PETA was deleted? I don't mind if someone else wants to go to the trouble of AFDing it, although it would be nice if I'd been asked first, I had my own nomination ready yesterday but I didn't get a chance to list it, not sure what the hurry was. I'm flattered though that the nominator thought my argument from the other AFD was worth copying and pasting here, but it's always best to re-write them in your own words. Delete the list, now it's here. Masaruemoto 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Szyslak. Handschuh-talk to me 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremely well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mostly sourced to PETA itself. Other sources include the celebrities' personal websites and POV sites like NewsMax. szyslak 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely a notable issue. Would say merge into main article, but it is too long. This list is very well sourced anyways. - Rjd0060 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since Peta does support terrorist organizations and is considered by many to be a terrorist organization, in itself, the public should be aware of which notable figure support this organization- Vladlvr 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you trust the website of (say) Hezbollah to report unbiasedly on who supports them? This article is sources almost totally from PETA websites. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seems well sourced to me, and both PETA and the members listed seem notable enough. Rray 13:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if a celebrity is notable, and an organization is notable, that automatically makes the celebrity's support for the organization notable? Sounds like an odd case of inherited notability. szyslak 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that, as mentioned earlier, most of the sources come from PETA itself, and besides, it is misleading to claim that these people support the entire organization (which has some questionable practices in my opinion) when they only support one or two of their causes. -kotra (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced and informative. Poeloq 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article seems to have been created as a sub-article of the main PETA article due to length considerations, which strikes me as reasonable, and I can't see that the list is "indiscriminate", although I personally might prefer setting a threshold for inclusion in the list somewhere, so as to not include those with only minimal involvement. -- John Carter (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then bring both this and the previous deletion for Opponents to DRV so they can be considered together. There is a virtue in consistency, and perhaps its time WP admitted as much. The case for keeping this depends on someone showing why the other article should be deleted and not this one--I just don't see it.DGG (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and follow the procedure as outlined above by User:DGG - fchd (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and as poorly sourced (and probably unsourceable) and biased. Without List of opponents of PETA, this list is no longer NPOV. Also, none (except maybe Steven Seagal's reference, but that's debatable) of these references actually claim that the person supports PETA. They only claim that they have helped PETA in one of their causes. By the logic in this article, I support Nazism because animal welfare was one of their tenets (I don't, of course). I see no references that state the person supports PETA, therefore it is NOT referenced. -kotra (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No longer NPOV without the opposite article. Viperix (talk) 08:46, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iva.co.uk[edit]

Iva.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I previously speedied this, but it's been recreated with at least some assertion of notability. Is it enough to keep? ELIMINATORJR 00:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations[edit]

Jewish-Christian Gospels: Patristic Citations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article claims to have been newly moved from Wikisource, which I can't verify one way or another. However, I do not believe that the existing article provides any particular useful context to any of the works with which it deals, and I believe that, on that basis, it may well violate the policy regarding indiscriminate collections of information. Creator of the page is being notified of this discussion, and the Christianity and Bible projects have also been notified. John Carter 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One of the most complete collections of primary sources on the Jewish-Christian gospels I have seen. The Wikisource version should have a link to the pages of all three J-C gospels. However, a collection of primary sources does not make an article. Ovadyah 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminant list of information. Handschuh-talk to me 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I concur that it appears to be a thorough list. Unfortunately, it's not a list that belongs here, per nom. I have also sorted the debate as Society (Religion). ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Handschuh. FYI, it was deleted from WikiSource. - Rjd0060 04:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm. These should be preserved somewhere, although not in an article here. Send it back to Wikisource for repairs. Ovadyah 13:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree; this should be kept somewhere, either at Wikisource or at Wikibooks. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters on The Red Green Show[edit]

List of characters on The Red Green Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

With very few exceptions (which can be easily noted in the main article), none of the characters in this article have enough notability on their own to have their own sections. As currently written, most of the characters have only one line, and the article contains copy/paste material from DVD liners and the Red Green website. AFAIK, there are very few secondary sources that would describe these characters in an out-of-universe context.

In short, this article is not needed. The more notable of the minor/unseen characters can be mentioned in prose in the main article (Bernice, Bonnie, etc.), and the remaining characters can be summarized as just that: Minor characters. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BTW, it should be noted that I was the one to originally create this article by splitting off the minor characters from the main article. (Original title: Minor characters on The Red Green Show.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the nom on this one. Minor characters (if important) can be mentioned in the main article. - Rjd0060 05:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the comments provided by the nominator. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 01:10, 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 deleted by Ryan Postlethwaite. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Witt[edit]

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

Unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul 00:18, 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.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machinae Supremacy webography[edit]

Machinae Supremacy webography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Good faith nomination. I am the creator of the page, and while I feel the band are notable, such trivial info on the promo songs may not be. Rehevkor 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Rehevkor 03:43, 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 'album' has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham album) --Tikiwont (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham song)[edit]

Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has no merit whatsoever and is based upon a false premise. The song itself does exist, but there is no evidence or reason to believe it was ever intended to be a single. It only came to note after a series of songs from this era by Beckham were leaked to the internet last year via a fan forum. An article featuring a supposed album of the same name has also appeared on Wikipedia by the same author as this article, which is also completely fake (and indeed that article has already been deleted several times). Rumour, speculation and lies have surrounded the song and album - but even the majority of fans dont believe that it was ever set to be released. To repeat there is no official (or for that matter, unofficial) evidence to suggest the song was ever intended to be heard and therefore has no merit and should not be featured on Wikipedia. -- Rimmers (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - The article for the song itself fails WP:MUSIC, and should be redirected to the main article about this album, which was produced by a notable individual. -- Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that is that the album doesnt exist - its a fan made entity and is currently listed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Your Eyes (Victoria Beckham album)) Rimmers (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - per nom and Nenyedi.   jj137 (Talk) 03:04, 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.
  1. ^ Sims bassador download Bassador retriever quote: * Downloads: 362 * Filesize: 6 kB * Requires: Pets What happens when you cross a Labrador with a Basset hound. Of course, it would really be a medium sized dog, but Maxis doesn't have that option. So, this dog will look like a puppy forever.
  2. ^ A goose to be reckoned with (From Sentinel reporter Erin Ailworth) quote: My bassador (Basset/Lab mix) Lois and I — and two smaller dogs I am pet-sitting were nearly goosed this morning.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_16&oldid=1081101111"