Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 2

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Portuguese anti-communists===

Portuguese anti-communists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's actually a category, not an article, but the template redirected here so... Maybe I chose the wrong template. Anyway, members of WP: PT have brought into question if this category is worth existing as it's pretty much irrelevant and should probably be deleted.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 21:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It really was the wrong template to use. Please delete this subpage.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves ^{talk / contribs} (join WP:PT) 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure).Qst 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DOV_Pharmaceutical

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:N. No sources given at all. Subdolous 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of New Jersey-related deletions, Business-related deletions, and Medicine-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- A check of the Wall Street Journal web site followed by a quick 30-second Google News Archive search turned up the following just in the first 100 results (out of 2670):

1. Hess, Diane, Drugmaker's IPO Is a Big Headache, TheStreet.com, 1 May 2002. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
2. Simpson, Stephen D. A Pain DOV Pharmaceutical Couldn't Cure, Motley Fool, 26 April 2006. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
3. Krauskopf, Lewis, Investors Suing Hackensack, N.J.-Based DOV Pharmaceutical over Stock Losses, The Record (Hackensack, New Jersey), 2 May 2002. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
4. Lynn, Kathleen, Dov Pharmaceutical exploring alternatives, The Record (Hackensack, New Jersey), 11 October 2006. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
5. Maeillo, Michael, The Coldest IPO..., Forbes.com, 2 September 2002. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
6. DOV IPO sinks on first day, CNN.com, 25 April, 2002. Retrieved 5 November 2007.
7. DOV Pharmaceutical Inc. (DOVP), Wall Street Journal profile. Retrieved 5 November 2007.

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Snowball keep - public company, obviously notable. Advise nominator to check google next time.Wikidemo 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional militia movement, editors are advised not to misuse the AfD process to settle content disputes. Sandstein 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Militia movement (United States)

Militia movement (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article as presently written is highly biased against a lumpting together of several rival movements, so violates WP:NPOV. That could be corrected by almost totally re-writing it to be neutral, as the Constitutional militia movement article currently is, so far (which has also been nominated for deletion by the proponent of this article). So we have an edit war.

It does seem clear that an article on some kind of militia movement is needed to contain material now in other articles, such as Militia and Militia (United States), which unbalance them. A movement, any movement, is a distinct topic from the subject of concern for the movement, although links from one to the other are certainly appropriate.

One way to resolve such a dispute would be to fold the two articles into one, with each name directing to the same article, but in this case that does not seem to be the best solution.

First, no evidence has been provided that there are any militia movements outside the United States that would suggest a collection of militia movement articles with the names of countries in parentheses for each of them. If the need for such articles is later established, the need for this article can be re-asserted, perhaps to contain a list or sections on different kinds of militia movements, in the United States or elsewhere.

Second, the article in its present state is not only biased against what it treats as a single movement, it commits a WP:OR violation by lumping what appear to be several distinct movements into one, and attributes to all the movements the negative attributes of one of those movements. Adherents of the Constitutional militia movement self-identify by that name, to distinguish themselves from other movements which which they might be confused, and to which they are actively hostile. Moreover, the rival movements seem to have little in common other than a willingness to take up arms. They have quite different objectives, agendas, and methods. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced, even by the critics, that the rivals of the constitutional militia movement even style themselves "militia", especially since 1994 when the rivalry became intense and the constitutional miltia movement adopted the word "constitutional" to distinguish itself from its rivals.

Third, there is evidence, to be produced later, that there are constitutional militia movements in other countries, where they are also distinguished from armed groups, usually separatists of some kind, which are often called "militias" by their critics as a pejorative, but which almost never adopt the word for themselves. If enough such movements in foreign countries emerge, then it may become appropriate to disambiguate them into country articles, and there would then need to be an article Constitutional militia movement (United States).

So far, the rival in this edit war, User:Saltyboatr, seems to exhibit only anti-militia bias masquerading under an excessively fastidious application of Wikipedia policies beyond their common-sense intentions.

Finally, since there is this confusion of rival movements, the best solution, rather than to make one article the field for an edit war, is to create other articles, one for each of the rival movements, and if critics of the other movements want to weigh with their criticism of each such movement, they may do so. There are already articles on Christian identity and Skinhead that may represent the beginning of such a collection of movement disambiguation articles. Jon Roland 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Clearly, the topic of modern militia movement(s) in the United States easily meets the notability test. There are library bookshelves filled with reliably sourced books on this subject. See this Google Books collection of books for example. Also see this Google Scholar search. Also, the title 'Militia Movement' is confirmed in the zietgeist, with the term 'Militia Movement' appearing in the title of numerous books: Cozic 1997 ISBN 1565105419, Levitas 2002, ISBN 0312320418 (plus several more). The (United States) in the title also seems appropriate as this militia movement phenomena appears centered in the United States, if not entirely located in the United States. SaltyBoatr 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability is clearly established, television, See 1997 PBS Newshour feature with the byline "the militia movement in the United States". Also notable, see the Senate Hearings on the topic "The Militia Movement in the United States". SaltyBoatr 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge as POV content fork of Militia (United States) 132.205.99.122 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

comment, I think a clear case can be made that 'militia' historically in the USA versus the 1990's 'militia movement' are actually different distinct things. One is a form of military service, and the other is a social political movement. See[1], etc.. Therefore an article about the social movement is not a fork, but rather a distinct topic. SaltyBoatr 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable and sourced, besides the sources already used in the article there has been a library written about this topic. The United States Senate thought this was important enough to hold hearings, and the Oklahoma City Bombing has forever established cultural relevancy. I wouldn't have created this article if I hadn't thought it was important. --arkalochori ^|talk| 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The following books have been published on the militia movement:

Cozic, Charles P. (1997) The Militia Movement Greenhaven Press

Mulloy, Darren. (2004) American Extremism: History, Politics and the Militia Movement, Routledge

Levitas, Daniel. (2002) The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right St. Martin's Press

Crothers, Lane (2003) Rage on the Right: The American Militia Movement from Ruby Ridge to Homeland Rowman & Littlefield

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to published works. There are also a preponderance of stories in the media and reports that all refer to a "Militia movement." This is not original research to speak of an overarching cultural movement. --arkalochori ^|talk| 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is OR to say so, but my investigation finds that all of those writings were funded by grants that appear to have come, directly or indirectly, from the Anti-Defamation League or perhaps its allies. That POV funding support calls into question the reliability of the works, especially when it appears that none of them ever personally investigated the objects of their writing, but relied almost entirely on documentation provided to them by their sponsors. As such, they should be doubted for the same reason we doubt Bellesiles. Jon Roland 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Caution Considering the history, we should exercise extreme caution when evaluating reliability of sourcing using an Anti-Zionism conspiracy hypothesis in militia related articles in Wikipedia. An anti-Zionist hypothesis clearly is a case per WP:SOURCES where "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". In short, considering the 'extraordinary' nature of the claim, Jon Roland must meet the higher 'most reliable' standard found at WP:RS. Not simply the 'reliable' standard, but rather the 'most reliable' standard which is: "...peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". He has not yet done so. SaltyBoatr 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per SaltyBoatr, Arkalochori. Sourced and notable. Edward321 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong revise There is a fundamental problem in writing articles about "movements", especially "loose" movements, composed of many individuals holding diverse views and engaged in diverse activities, even in opposition to one another. It is POV to lump together people as a single movement whose activists don't self-identify as a single movement. It is also a category error. As neutral editors we should disaggregate (disambiguate) groups of people respecting their preferences and beliefs, not those of outsiders, especially their opponents or critics. It would be acceptible to me to keep it if it were re-written to more closely resemble an article like Protestant, which distinguishes the various Protestant sects from one another and even from other sects like Mormons that do not identify themselves as "Protestant". A sense of this can be seen by doing some Google groups searches on "constitutional militia" for several time periods to get a sense of what people, both supporters and opponents, were saying on the subject:

• Much of the documentation from this movement appeared online, initially in Usenet groups. See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/94-12/21/97.
• See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/04-present.

Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A useful site on this topic is one on "Militia Movement" from Apologetics:

The militant arm of the Patriot Movement. Organized, armed groups that claim to defend the U.S. Constitution (from real or perceived enemies).

The FBI distinguishes Constitutional militias and hate groups:

Federal agents and militia members say the outreach program helps distinguish true Constitutional militia members from hate groups and changes the public perception that militias are "anti-government."

See also Militias: Initiating Contact, by James E. Duffy and Alan C. Brantley, M.A.

But a source of confusion can be seen in the FBI document Project Megiddo which announced plans for the general warrantless detention of dissidents of all kinds in case of a national crisis (such as Y2K), which was widely discussed as confirmation of the threat of federal tyranny:

V - Militias

The majority of growth within the militia movement occurred during the 1990s. There is not a simple definition of how a group qualifies as a militia. However, the following general criteria can be used as a guideline: (1) a militia is a domestic organization with two or more members; (2) the organization must possess and use firearms; and (3) the organization must conduct or encourage paramilitary training. Other terms used to describe militias are Patriots and Minutemen.

That might make working sense to the author of the FBI report, and perhaps to reporters, to lump anyone meeting that definition into a single group or movement, but it shouldn't be difficult to discern the problems with it for purposes of Wikipedia editing.

Jon Roland 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment It must be noted that Jon Roland initiated this request for article deletion on Nov 2[2], but on Nov 4[3] has revised his opinion from delete to 'strong revise'. As such, it appears this AfD is now moot and should be closed or withdrawn. SaltyBoatr 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete Several points:

• (1) A "militia movement" is not the same as "militia", and deserves its own article.
• (2) "Constitutional militia" is not the same as "militia", as that term has come to be used by outsiders and antagonists. There is indeed a category error in combining different things under the same label, and even if many people do not correctly disambiguate, we should do so. The article Militia (United States) can already serve as the article for "constitutional militia", with the removal of some biased content about the improperly combined movements as characterized by outsiders and antagonists. But "constitutional militia" or "constitutional militia (United States)" should be redirected to it.
• (3) "Constitutional militia movement" is not the same as "militia movement", and deserves its own article that makes that clear. If militia movement (United States) is to be kept, perhaps because many people do use the term, it should be reworked into an article that lists or has separate sections for the several different and even rival movements sometimes so labeled and combined.
• (4) In a comparison of the constitutional militia movement article to this one I find:

• (a) The other article is emerging to satisfy WP:NPOV while this one, in its present state, does not.
• (b) Sourcing for the other article is already good and getting better, although there is room for improvement. If an editor has doubts about some point, instead of deleting it (or the article), he should first try to discover whether it is not supported by an existing note or reference, and if not, add a note or reference that does, or insert a tag to request one, then allow some reasonable time for someone to respond.
• (c) The references supporting the other article are more objective and have more scholarly integrity than those that support this one, which, like the infamous work of Bellesiles, seem not just to have a POV, but to be "hatchet jobs" in a war of ideas. Perhaps they deserve their own article or section in some "countermovement" article.

• (5) I am disappointed in the obvious POV of some of the editors calling for deletion of the other article and keeping this one, presumably in its present state. You don't even make an effort to conceal it. I for one am learning a lot from this debate that I wouldn't learn by just reading the articles, and suggest that, if we keep this article, this debate be copied to its Talk:Militia movement (United States) page. The other article already contains much valuable material, well presented, and I hope to see what else may be added. While I am skeptical of some points Jon Roland makes, I am not sure I will not come to agree with him as I learn more, and I urge the rest of you to approach the subject with the same spirit of discovery.

Bracton 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. None of these five reasons to delete given by Bracton pertain to the standards of WP:DEL#REASON and therefore appear to be irrelevant to the question at hand. Incidentally, the most important condition: notability, appears satisfied in Bracton's opinion considering that Bracton asserts "...because many people do use the term". Therefore I conclude that Bracton actually agrees (or concedes) that notability exists for this article. SaltyBoatr 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. I do concede much the content (after it is POV-neutralized) can reasonably be put in some article, under another name, perhaps redirected to a section within Christian Patriot movement (which should be renamed to remove the "Christian", because it includes Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and other sects), but that article needs POV-neutralizarion, too. (Is that a term anyone uses?) So perhaps what is needed is a merge or redirect. Bracton 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the articles, and move to "militia movement." I'm disappointed that some people have called the other article a POVFORK, when the page histories show that the other article was started FIRST. And while that article isn't NPOV, neither is this one. Put the two together, and you might have a balanced article (or an edit war - sigh). And if which article gets primacy is going to be decided based on which title is "better," this one has an unnecessary disambiguator in the title. Other countries have militias, but there is no other "militia movement," at least none that English-speakers would be familiar with. --WacoKid 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. I have suggested that it be reworked into a gateway disambiguation article to the many movements that are sometimes lumped together as "militia" by outsiders or antagonists, but that distinguish themselves or even see each other as rivals. The "(United States)" disambiguator is indeed unnecessary, but not breakout into rival movements. This article could then have a short section on "Constitutional militia movement" and link to Constitutional militia movement as the "main article". As a prudential matter, that might also tend to at least cabin some of the edit warfare that might consume too much attention by editors. Jon Roland 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. Not the right merge. I suggested merge or redirect (after removing "(United States)" to the Patriot movement article, with the "Christian" removed, because, from what I have been discovering, what are left after removing "Constitutional militia movement" from the mix seldom identify themselves as "militia" but often do identify themselves as a "Patriot movement" (but often as other than "Christian"). In weighing reliable sources we should give primary weight in combining people as groups to insiders rather than outsiders. Bracton 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Jon Roland initiated this AfD, but now advocates for a reworking instead. Therefore this AfD is now moot. SaltyBoatr 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. No, not advocating, only suggesting a compromise. I still think that it should be deleted, especially if no one else is going to fix it as I have suggested. I have too much to do already to fix that one as well. But I see some merit to Bracton's proposal. Jon Roland 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise. I propose that Jon Roland withdraw his request to delete this article and that Saltyboatr withdraw his request to delete Constitutional militia movement. I think Roland has a much stronger case but perhaps it is better to just separate them and the articles they favor. Bracton 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. I will agree with that if Saltyboatr does, but I would ask that he (not someone else) insert a link to Constitutional militia movement under See also to confirm the agreement. Each article has its own warnings to visitors that can caution them, and there is already such a link in Constitutional militia movement to this article. Jon Roland 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This suggestion requires going contrary to WP:POL, and I have no authority to agree to such. SaltyBoatr 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV, I don't see that this would necessarily be a POV fork if the "Consititutional militia movement" represents an independent, reliably documented POV from what is meant by the general term "militia movement". The POV fork prohibition is intended to keep an editor's own POV from becoming an article, but it is not intended to keep Wikipedia from documenting various already-published points-of-view. Each article should contain a link to the other, though, to bolster the neutrality of both articles. DHowell 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but heavily revise to comply with WP:NPOV and perhaps rename to Criticism of militia movements (United States) or Patriot militia movement (United States). As I read this article, while it is documenting a notable point-of-view, it does not appear to be neutral with respect to this POV or towards U.S. milita movements in general. DHowell 05:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The first rename would be better, but the word "militia" should be in quotes to indicate it is the critics that apply that label, and that many of those who they are criticizing do not. Bracton 16:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move. I submitted a formal request to rename the article to Criticism of "militia" movements (United States) in the Talk:Militia movement (United States) page and on the WP:Requested moves page. Bracton 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I would still prefer to delete it, and my second choice would be to merge it to Christian Patriot movement renamed to just Patriot movement, and heavily revised for WP:NPOV, but there seems to be a demand for an article that does contain nothing but criticisms, and the prudential solution may be to just rename it to Criticism of "militia" movements (United States) or Criticism of "militia" movements. I did a search and there are plenty of precedents for such articles, even though it seems to me that there is a problem with notability for "criticisms of" something rather than the thing itself. Looking at the edit histories of those articles, I find a similar situation to the one we have with this one: dominance by a few editors that insist on inserting criticisms of something and remove any attempts to balance it. I say let them have such an article, but rename it in a way that makes its POV clear. Jon Roland 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete and create Redirect to Saturday Night Slam Masters. — Satori Son 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gunloc

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

Non-notable fictional character from a video game. Article consists of statistics seemingly copied directly from the manual, which breaks WP:NOT#GUIDE, in-universe character history, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section, which is advised against by WP:TRIVIA. Google returns only fansites, game guides, and unrelated hits indicating that it is unlikely secondary sources have devoted significant coverage to this character, which in turn indicates the notability criteria in WP:FICT cannot be met. Doctorfluffy 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Although I am favour of keeping game characters, these ones, in Saturday Night Slam Masters are the same and they are badly written, and as Doc Fluffy says, seem to be copied verbatim from the manual. If we get rid of this, then all need to go, and maybe the game article itself, as its a similar case. Major re-write. scope_creep 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'm a little unclear, you acknowledge this article breaks policy, but you !vote "keep" because there are other character articles from the same game? This could be rewritten, but what would you put in it? There are no reliable secondary sources that have covered the subject, so the article will almost certainly be breaking some clause of WP:NOT or WP:N no matter what. Doctorfluffy 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails Plot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Saturday Night Slam Masters. JuJube 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• He's not notable. Redirect it to Saturday Night Slam Masters. i (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Redirect. No refs, no establishment of notability. Get rid of the other ones, for that matter.Epthorn 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this stup has no content, primary or secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (non admin, {{db-afd}}) per consensus. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great MÄR-Heaven Wars

Great MÄR-Heaven Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely plot summary, therefore failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Fails to assert any notability through secondary sources, thereby also failing WP:FICT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Wow, you conflicted me at the very last second before I pressed save. Basically, I support a deletion. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's why TWINKLE > Manual methods. :) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article has merit, it is linked to several other articles detailing other aspects of the managa details. I think it should be cleaned up and the mar war article as well. scope_creep 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• The fact it discusses a fictional topic in great detail is irrelevant. The problem that must be addressed is whether this article is notable under Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). To be so, it must receive coverage from reliable secondary sources that have commented significantly on the topic. This appears not be the case, as this is a specific plot element of the entire series. Furthermore, this article is entirely plot summary, making it unsuitable as an article per WP:NOT#PLOT. Until these concerns are addressed, the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Ridernyc 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Consists of only plot. Adequate sources to add real world context are not available. Jay32183 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --bainer (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiona Volpe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bond girls

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

The only Bond girl I can think of who could ever warrant a separate article would be maybe Pussy Galore, who is mostly notable for her name. Yet there are individual pages for everyone from Jill Masterton to Bibi Dahl to Christmas Jones. These should all be deleted or redirected appropriately. Paliku 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was originally trying to find a way to list Bond girl generically without nominating that specific article, but I have decided to nominate Fiona Volpe instead since that was the original article I had redirected to the film before realizing the problem was so widespread. Sorry. Paliku 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• ...And she was apparently already voted on so I guess I'll let someone else handle this. Paliku 23:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No particular reason given for deletion. These films remain massively popular & the Bond girls iconic. Johnbod 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Massively popular or not you still have to follow policy. Ridernyc 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely fail to see what bearing either policy has here. The article is certainly not written in a in-world perspective, nor is it a plot summary. If you believe it contradicts either, please be specific as to how. Johnbod 01:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and add references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major characters in the biggest film franchise of them all. Nick mallory 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Close without prejudice. The user appears to have meant well, but seeing as this particular character's fate was already settled and the bigger picture is too broad to generalize (i.e. there are definitely certain Bond girls who don't merit a page, but some do merit one), this discussion should be closed. I would say, however, that the specific articles cited do not assert notability outside of the connection to the films and therefore would fail a vote. You can probably be bold and take care of pages like Bibi. I know the Bond girl article is not what was nominated, but since it is in the AfD title, I think we'd all say keep that article. Modla 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major cultural figures, and enough has been written about most in the reviews etc of the films for individual articles.

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

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

The result was delete --ais523 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Myrelle Berengari

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

Non-notable fictional character. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. 142 ghits ("-wikipedia"), all from fansites and related, indicating it's unlikely such sources can be found. Article provides no real-world context and is entirely an in-universe plot summary, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The article is terrible, and as you say minor. Waste of resources. scope_creep 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. And before anyone complains I happen to be a huge fan of this series of books. I just don't think this kind of stuff belongs on here. Ridernyc 00:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."--Masterzora 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. The discussion seems to indicate that the subject is notable, but the article itself is in need of help. --ais523 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Adsdaq

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

Delete unsourced article about ad selling services run by a red-linked company, no evidence of notability, reliable sources, etc. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No indications of notability or secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think it is an ad. I spent some time looking at it, and it seems the ompany does use a new type of context aware realtime ad selection and placement. But the article is really badly written. scope_creep 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Include It Would love to see this stay. It's just like the AdECN ad exchange I tried to add a couple of months ago and editors did not see it as noteworthy back then. Fair enough. But, overall, 'advertising exchanges' should become a new entry, too. I wish I understood how this process works on Wikipedia or I'd try to be more helpful with the editing. Added a few things on Adsdaq. I see that RightMedia and Doubleclick are already on. Newval 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Newval
  • Yes, DoubleClick is here, when Adsdaq is sold for $3.1 billion generating a flurry of media notice, it'll be here too. Carlossuarez46 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable based on the two in-line citations in the article. Needs cleanup. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sample citations found with some searching:

1. Marcus, Nanette (2007-07-18). "ContextWeb's ADSDAQ". Ad Exchanges at a Glance. iMediaConnection. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
2. Shields, Mike (2007-10-01). "Online Ad Exchange Business Builds But Faces Uphill Climb". Mediaweek magazone (a Nielsen Company publication). Retrieved 2007-11-06.
3. O'Malley, Gavin (2007-10-09). "AdBidCentral Launches Auction Marketplace". Online Media Daily. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
4. Kuchinskas, Susan (July 2006). "Rebooting the Media Marketplace". Media magazine. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Advertising-related deletions and Internet-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gayness

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

This is a crap article with no encyclopedic content and nothing worth merging anywhere, but I can't make up my mind whether it would be best deleted, or redirected to gay. Amazingly, this borderline patent nonsense has been around for over two years.h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, borderline nonsense essay of no value as a redirect. Starts out being about homosexuality, ends up being about gay meaning lame. --Dhartung | Talk 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, tagged as such. THE KING 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed the speedy tag, as I can't see how A7 applies to this article.--Fabrictramp 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Geez Louise, how did this stay up for more than 2 years? Somebody really hated that administrative law class, apparently. Mandsford 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete meaningless essay. Hal peridol 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Original research, stream of consciousness pap. scope_creep 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• I would vote Speedy Delete as in my eyes this is clear vandalism, but I'm certain people would disagree, so just Strongest Possible Delete. JuJube 01:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced incoherent essay. Note: Except for a few days at different times, it has redirected to gay since creation in 2005. If it's redirected again then delete first to prevent reversal of the redirect. PrimeHunter 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing it out. Now depending on the result of the AfD (delete, or redirect) the closing admin should either salt the page against creation or protect the redirect, as there has clearly been vandalism and bad-faith nonsense going on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. For clarification: the rubbish appeared on August 21, 2005 and was turned into a redirect after a bit more than 3 hours. An anon reverted that edit on July 18, 2007 but it was redirected again on July 21. An anon reverted again on September 17, the redirect was restored the next day. An anon reverted yet again on October 30. Bizarrely the article, a piece of vandalism itself, was then vandalized and reverted by vandal-fighter back to the two paragraphs. It lasted until November 2 before being nominated for AFD. The real lost opportunity was on July 21, 2007, when it was tagged as speedy delete, but just reverted to a redirect. It would definitely have been worth actually deleting the article, and either restarting it with a redirect or just leaving it empty (no harm done since no inbound links, and has the benefit that new vandalism on the page would have to sneak through newpage scrutiny and not just recent changes).TheGrappler 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's why I strongly recommend the admin chooses to either salt the page or fully protect the redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I quite concur. Since redirecting to Gay seems a good choice, I'd lean towards protecting the redirect myself. Certainly I think it would be a very bad idea to repeat the mistake of July 21. TheGrappler 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per all of the above. -- Dougie WII 07:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dougie WII. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al. and redirect to Gaydar. Bearian'sBooties 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly not an attempt at adding anything useful about gays or gayness. Borderline vandalism; only excuse: maybe that administrative law class was really very boring. --Smeira 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al. Preferrably not redirect at all. --AliceJMarkham 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

On Hallowed Ground

On Hallowed Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable D&D accessory book. No real world context is established and notability is not asserted. Pilotbob 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Subdolous - not notable. Hal peridol 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think it might be notable, as the father article is still present. There is no context to the article. No info, no sources, bugger all. scope_creep 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge. Book is notable for helping to shape the cosmology of D&D in general, & the Planescape setting in particular.--04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbstrd (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Per Robbstrd. BOZ 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. The source identified by Colonel Warden seems to denote notability. Merging is possible if an appropriate target can be found. Sam Blacketer 17:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spawn of Tiamat

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

A list of non-notable dragons that has no real world context. These dragons cannot meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Pilotbob 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. For example, see review in which the subject is highlighted as being the best part of Monster Manual IV. And coverage in Dragon #260. There's also something about the real world Spawn of Tiamat in Harran by Seton Lloyd & William Brice, Anatolian Studies, Vol. 1, 1951 (1951), pp. 77-111. Colonel Warden 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as pure spawn spam. No primary or reliable secondary sources, no notability at all. A mention in a book review is about as much evidence of notability as a listing in a telephone directory, and citing sources that have no relation to these fictional instances of Tiamt is just misleading. --Gavin Collins 14:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Colonol Warden. Gavin, I think you need to look up the definition of "spam"--this article is far from it--Robbstrd 04:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That was a joke, but not a funny one I'd admit.--Gavin Collins 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and merge - I think this would be a decent footnote in another article which provides more context. Keep the content that isn't just rambling on about the plot details, and merge. -Harmil 06:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability established, reliable sources provided. @pple complain 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Moving Toyshop

The Moving Toyshop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; no assertion that this book meets WP:BK, no reliable 3rd party sources. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - clearly fails to meet WP:BK. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A 30 second check of the New York Times archives turned up 3 more. The article itself already cited P. D. James's article in the Wall Street Journal listing as one of her five favourites. That's "P. D. James" as in the P. D. James, perhaps the world's finest living crime writer and one of Britain's finest writers of any stripe. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article is clearly notable, in the fact that the book was dedicated to Phillip Larkin, who was widely recognised as the best English poet in the last 50 years. That makes it notable. Somebody needs to go in heavy and fix it up, with sources, additional detail.... scope_creep 00:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with scope_creep, but not for the reason of the dedication. Edmund Crispin is one of the classic British detective authors and "The Moving Toyshop" is perhaps his best and best known book. It is notable, but has perhaps dropped out of the limelight recently and may have few internet sources. It needs expanding and fixing up. It should have a place here. --Bduke 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep One of the most famous books by a popular English author. Just because it's not currently in the best seller charts - it was published in 1946 - doesn't mean it wasn't well read in its day and notability doesn't erode over time. This book is still in print after 60 years! As for no coverage in secondary sources, have those voting 'delete' actually bothered to look for any? In 1987, noted mystery author and reviewer H.R.F. Keating composed a list [4] of his picks of the best mysteries and named The Moving Toyshop as the best detective book of its year. To imply a book published in 1946 isn't notable on the basis of a lack of newspaper reviews avaliable on google is silly. No less an authority than P.D. James named it one of the five best detective novels of all time in this piece [[5] ] available on the Wall Street Journal site, writing that "this spirited frolic of a detective story retains its place as one of the most engaging and ingenious mysteries of its age." Nick mallory 06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- see WP:SNOWBALL. Here are some citations:
  • James, P. D. (2006-06-03). "Murder, They Wrote: The most riveting crime novels". The Five Best. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-11-05.
  • Anderson, Isaac (1946-12-08). "The Moving Toy Shop (review)" (PDF, fee required). Criminals at Large. The New York Times. p. 196. Retrieved 2007-11-05. Original New York Times review.
  • Hubin, Allen (1968-06-02). "Criminals at Large (column)" (PDF, fee required). The New York Times Magazine. p. BR12. Retrieved 2007-11-05. The Times' mystery reviewer's comments on his list of all-time favourites.
  • "Paperbacks: New and Noteworthy (column)" (PDF, fee required). The New York Times Book Review. 1977-06-12. p. BR12. Retrieved 2007-11-05. Brief review on the occasion of the book's republication

I will be happy to e-mail copies of the "fee required" New York Times articles during the course of this AfD to anyone that wants one; I have a few remaining copies left in my monthly download allowance. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. No difficulty in finding reliable sources. Clearly meets criteria for WP:PROF per well-known works established. Also, the absence of birthdate has no relation to reinforcement of notability. Remember that even Jimbo doesn't know his exact birthday. @pple complain 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Frodeman

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

Delete contested prod; very short article written by an editor whose username "Frodeman" suggests a WP:COI. Fails WP:PROF, and so nn that we don't know where or when he was born red flags of non-notability in modern biographies - for those who disagree on that point: what sort of biography would you expect to see in any almanac, encyclopedia, or any source that omits these basics - if we can't come up with them from some RS, tells you a lot about the person's coverage in RSes. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 00:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the claims of COI and so nn as not to have a birthdate are probably incompatible--if he or his immediate family wrote it, they could have inserted it had they thought of it--but it's just an inadequately written faculty article--too modest to even mention his positions and degrees. I added the five books he's written or edited and a mention on his 30-some articles. His work has about 100 refs in Google Scholar. Two of his books have about 400 library holdings each. He's editor of 2 major ref. works. The appropriate thing to do for articles like this is to suggest to the author that s/he expand it. I do not know how careful a search was made to find "no significant coverage"--I found book reviews and references to his work just in Google Scholar and WorldCat. There is no reason to assume a poor quality article means a non-notable person. No, I still haven't found his birth date. But that wouldnt have been what made him notable.DGG (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Certainly not incompatible - one of the major problems with COI is that you only get the information they want to tell not the whole story as we expect in biographies. Carlossuarez46 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple hits when I did a 30-second Google's News Archive. Here's one from the Chronicle of Higher Ed:

• Monaghan, Peter, Earth Sciences Through the Lens of Humanities, Arts, and Theology, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 April 2003. Retrieved 6 November 2007.

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:PROF per DGG. Afd is not cleanup. Skomorokh ^incite 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 13:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Scion xP

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

The page is based on pure speculation and has no official backing. Butterfly0fdoom 21:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Subdolous 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Pretty much all web discussion is based on the externally linked article from pickuptruck.com. Even the autoblog article references it. --Sesameball^Talk 22:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's strange how the source article presents the subject so matter-of-factly without providing a shred of evidence for it. Not a reliable source in my opinion.~ Dusk Knight 03:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 08:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Caliste

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

No independant sourcing for notability. Possible COI from page author, possible vanity page. But even so, without independant sourcing, nothing on the page is verifiable, especially any notability. TexasAndroid 21:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable so far, despite close contact between his work and Condi's butt. Johnbod 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. freshacconci: speak to me 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Clubmarx 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- I couldn't find any reliable sources. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Donic Persson 5000 Timo Boll

Donic Persson 5000 Timo Boll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not include reliable sources to verify the notability of this product. My google search didn't reveal better sources. Prod removed by anon with edit summary of "asdasdasdwe345sdgdsgsdgsdgsdfgsdgsdgsdg," which I'm sure is a useful comment in this editor's native language. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The only thing this article mentions is that the product has a hefty price tag. Notability not even asserted. --Blanchardb 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Speedable per WP:A7. --Blanchardb 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or speedy per Blanchardb. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 05:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, or as our anon would say in Timo Boll-speak, "asdasdwe345sdgdsgsdgsdgsdfgsd". --A. B. ^(talk) 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Max Ross

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

A losing politician. A perennially losing politician, in fact, but unlike perennial loser Bill Boaks there are no non-trivial independent sources attesting his importance or significance. Sources are blogs, trivia or 404. And there are only four of them anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nor has he ever done anything else of note. Unless you hold to the view that WP should cover every human on earth, this article does not belong on WP. The ed. should consider publishing a book instead, where he can include whatever he thinks personally important. DGG (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the article: "never made a significant showing in an election". Lest we think the writer is just being modest, it then goes on to give an example of an election where he got just 10 votes. I think it's safe to say most of us could do better than that just by getting our immediate family and friends to vote for us. In any case, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I declined an A7 on this last month due to coverage over time, but I can't see anything to distinguish him from every other losing candidate in an election. — iridescent 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, failed to reach notability standards. Certainly can be mentioned in articles on opponents or elections if they exist. Creator left Wikipedia this spring after pushback over his creation of many non-notable bios sourced to his own unpublished research. It is unfortunate the editor has returned with no change in behavior. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Insufficient non-trivial sources. Hal peridol 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al. Bearian'sBooties 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per A.B. suggestion belowDelete. I wanted to find something notable, I tried. You would think that if someone runs in that many elections they would get some coverage even if they lose, something. But I can't find any other sources. Unless someone can show otherwise, there's nothing notable at all about the person.Wikidemo 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC). I found some sources and added one. That he wins or loses the election is besides the point. If he is a candidate and gets covered as such, that goes to notability.Wikidemo 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Try leaving out the middle name and searching on "Robert Ross"+Louisiana+Republican -- I got 62 Google News Archive hits for instance. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Without opening all 62 of them, on a skim-through it looks like all of those are just coverage of election results, which are listed in multiple papers. No-one's disputing that he stood in the election. Try a similar search on "Berony Abraham", who received a mighty 209 votes in the last UK election, (98 Ghits) to see just how meaningless the Google count is for politicians. — iridescent 02:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - some are about the candidacy and his stand on the issues (e.g. anti-abortion) and there are some AP and UPI articles specifically about him being a candidate. There are also multiple independent references already in the article, though not properly cited inline. Unless someone wants to check those paper sources we have to assume in good faith that the author reviewed the materials and found the citations appropriate. Wikidemo 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

John R. A. Moulton

John R. A. Moulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete individual who was a losing candidate in a municipal election. Mindmatrix 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:BIO is very clear on the criteria for including politicians & this chap fails miserably. • nancy • 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nancy. Subdolous 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per smile-inducing notability claims such as "ranked 167th out of 172 in the Canadian Classic Table Hockey Federation's 2006 Championship" This fellow is so non-notable even mosquitoes forget to bite him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and points to Andrew for getting a chuckle with that delete comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close to notable. Hal peridol 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, easily fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Starblind. Bearian'sBooties 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- nobody remembered until now to inform the article's author, User:Zanimum, a trusted, high volume editor and administrator. Let's see what he says. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: my mistake - I usually notify the creator in these cases, but I messed up this time. Mindmatrix 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No big deal -- I'm sure I must have done the same before. I think it would be valuable to have his participation, especially in evaluating the abstracts I turned up below. Also, if this is deleted, he may want it userfied so he can work on it.
• Weak keep -- Try leaving out the middle initials and searching for just "John Moulton"+Brampton. I found several references in Google's News Archives:

1. Grewal, San (2006-11-06). "Sprawl, gridlock dominate tight race". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
2. Grewal, San (2006-11-02). "Growth, gridlock loom large". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
3. "Candidates". Toronto Star. 2006-11-09. Retrieved 2007-11-06.
4. Moreau, Nicholas (2006-11-16). "Two Brampton residents announce 2010 mayoral intentions". The Brampton News. Retrieved 2007-11-06.

Unfortunately, the Brampton Guardian does not appear to have online archives (that I could find). --A. B. ^(talk) 03:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Those articles are behind a pay wall. I haven't paid for access to them, but I suspect that the extent of their coverage of this individual is to note that he participated in the municipal elections, but failed to win a seat. Such individuals rarely merit inclusion in Wikipedia, unless there are other reasons for their inclusion. The Toronto Star and others routinely mention all individuals that run in municipal, provincial and federal elections; only the elected candidates and losing incumbents deserve their own WP article. Others should be relegated to Brampton municipal election, 2006 and the like, in my opinion. Mindmatrix 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Revised comment: Delete, or merge as Zanimum sees fit. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge. I'm the creator, as mentioned above, but yeah, delete. It was during the election, and this guy had no information online about himself (besides what I found) and didn't speak to the local newspaper. So basically this was created, to provide our town of 400,000 with some information to make an informed choice. The Brampton News reference is me, btw. -- Zanimum 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Stigmatic

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

Non-notable, Google only gives 200 specific hits, most of which are myspace pages. Note the sizeable chunk of text that I removed when logged out; it could possibly be a vanity page? THobern 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears not to pass any of the music notability criteria. The article also has serious verifiability problems as it stands. EALacey 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Let's see. Myspace, Myspace, more Myspace, couple of Wiki mirrors, couple of non-notable sites... hey, ran out of unique links at 38. Delete as failing WP:MUSIC by quite a stretch. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per EALacey and Tony Fox. Any National tours? Bearian'sBooties 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of the Sword

Spirit of the Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Peter Rehse 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 18:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I wanted to make the additional comment regarding the "privately published manuscripts" that are cited as references. In my opinion, reference to these is more or less equivalent to original research. This is because "privately published" is extremely vague. The "manuscript" could range from an ancient treatise on the art that records all members, techniques, and deeds with encyclopedic precision and has been passed down from headmaster to headmaster for 500 years, to notes on the back of a napkin that the "founder" passed around to his buddies at the pub last night. As such, until it becomes "publicly published", it can't really be considered "reliable" or "verifiable" for anyone's purposes here. Bradford44 17:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- no reliable sources that I could find. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

EastEnders in popular culture

EastEnders in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a never ending trivial dumping ground for any EastEnders mention, parody, reference and so on. A prose should be in the main article, and leave it at that. Transwiki the information to a relevant Wiki if needed. RobJ1981 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/merge Lots of sources and lots of notability. If you want this material presented better then go to it. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Cleanup and merge into main article. Subdolous 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a long running UK sitcom Eastenders has had a huge impact on British popular culture. The regular participation of the Eastenders cast in television events such as Dimensions in Time make this particularly appropriate article. Artw 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Artw. This was previously split from EastEnders because it was too long. ^anemone|_projectors 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It is frivolous putting this up for deletion. The series has had a massive impact in Britian, although its influence is waning now. The article is too big for a father article. Its well written, has sources and pics. Needs some tidying. scope_creep 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A long section being moved to an article of it's own is more of an excuse in this case. Massive lists of pop culture don't serve much purpose, except to the trivia fans. As I said before: a prose is much better on the main article. The key is: condense the section when it gets too big, not just move it. RobJ1981 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with some weeding and further sourcing--most wp articles need this. What is important about a show is not just its plot but its influence.
• Speedy Keep. No rationale for its deletion has been put forward.--Father Goose 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics. Seeks to collect every passing reference to the show. A nice one- or two-paragraph "cultural impact" section in the main article, with sources, would sufficiently cover the territory. These laundry lists of "this one time on TV I heard someone say 'EastEnders'" nonsense need to go. Otto4711 14:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, and as I'm sure you've seen from reading the article theres plenty there that isn't "this one time on TV I heard someone say 'EastEnders'", and deleting the entire article is no way to deal with the parts of it that are cruft. Artw 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as inherently notable, and original article wouyld be too long. Certainly cleanup can be done. Bearian'sBooties 19:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since notability is dependent on external factors, there is no such thing as "inherent notability." The notability of the show is not inherited by every mention of the show in every episode of every TV show ever. Otto4711 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Per NOTINHERITED (and WP:N itself), there is enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article. That's not to say the sourcing and writing couldn't be improved further, but as Colonel Warden pointed out, AFD is not cleanup.--Father Goose 02:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Verifiability isn't notability. Every fact is verifiable. That doesn't mean that every fact is notable. Otto4711 03:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per point raised above that Deletion is not cleanup. There aren't many pop-culture articles at this standard, even if it's not perfect. •97198 talk 06:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A Scare at Bedtime

A Scare at Bedtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing nomination by User:Sarah777. Reason given in edit summary was "endless repitition". --Geniac 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep, why delete an article about a show that stands on its own? I understand some of the other related requests for deletion but this article merely needs to be worked on not deleted completely. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A show that ran for nine years and 150 episodes? - clearly worthy of inclusion. Sure the article could do with some work but that is no excuse to delete. • nancy • 19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Assuming significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can be demonstrated. But only if so. Subdolous 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep a TV show that got up to 150 episodes and 5 seasons? Ludicrous deletion candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Long-running and award-winning television show. Hal peridol 23:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well established show scope_creep 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- a quick 30-second Google News Archive search turned up 38 hits. A popular prime-time television show running 9 years is clearly notable; if there are no refs cited, that just means someone has to look. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - its an award-winning and long-lived TV show.--Opark 77 10:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Forever Red where it is already mentioned. --Polaron | Talk 16:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alpha 7

Alpha 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable fictional character with no real world context, no reliable secondary sources Pilotbob 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources given are primary. Subdolous 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge this and Alpha 6 into Alpha 5, else Weak keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Minor character. We need a policy for these endless single article for minor characters amounting to no more than 4-5 lines at most. scope_creep 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Ay ay ay ay ay, Merge per Starblind. JuJube 01:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge either per Stanbird, or with Forever Red. — BrotherFlounder 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Starblind - simply nn minor character. SkierRMH 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Power Rangers characters

Minor Power Rangers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of non notable characters from a fictional television show. This is mostly plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT), notability cannot be established from reliable secondary sources (WP:FICT), the article contains no real world context Pilotbob 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Inappropriate stand alone list per WP:SAL. Subdolous 20:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:PLot and WP:WAF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Its listcruft, but there is place for minor characters. No? scope_creep 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kind of cool, just needs to be expanded a little.--Cartman005 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As the title is screaming, no assertion of notability, inside or outside the show. •97198 talk 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some characters here are very important (like Dimitria, you can't find her anywhere else), while others are not notable. It should be kept for the sake of the notable characters, while the non notables could possibly be deleted from the article. Maybe an article could be made for Mentors that have helped the Power Rangers, or something like that. Sparkdogvbdapdnw 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now as a logical subset of List of Power Rangers characters; a notable topic of sorts. If no references are provided in a year or so then I think it should be reconsidered for delete. — RJH (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

a year? you have to be kidding. Ridernyc 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ack. Not notable. If they're not important enough to be placed in the List of Characters page, they're not important enough to mention. i (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

East Islip Middle School

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/East Islip Middle School
• Articles for deletion/East Islip Middle School (2nd nomination)

East Islip Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The school seems to fail WP:ORG. The first AfD last year was closed as "keep", but there is still no substantiated claim to notability. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 20:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of encyclopedic notability whatsoever (A7) . No sources and insignificant media coverage. No yellow pages.--victor falk 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with East Islip, New York. There should be at least some mention of the school. Auroranorth (sign) 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• delete and salt-this is why Wikipedia has detractors. Chris 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT Fails notability. Given the lack of an agreement at WP:SCH, it fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. It asserts no notability. It has no WP:RS that are WP:V. Thank you. Twenty Years 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - salting is not cool. If it fails notability for lack of sourcing or because it's just not a notable institution, the situation can always change with better sourcing or a change to the institution. Salting is only when people repeatedly re-create articles and we have to avoid disruption. It's not appropriate as merely a strong statement of disapproval.Wikidemo 22:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Victor. Salting seems over the top -- I wouldn't recommend it, unless there are major problems I'm unaware of. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Auroranorth Noroton 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. At the current level of sourcing, it does not appear to be impossible to have a BLP-compliant article about this person, so policy does not mandate outright deletion. Sandstein 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sean Hughes (Irish republican)

Sean Hughes (Irish republican) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article with major, major problems so please read carefully. Toby Harnden wrote a book called Bandit Country which was published in 1999. The book was a detailed account of the Provisional IRA's South Armagh Brigade, and certain people were not named for legal reasons. One of them was called "The Surgeon", who at the time had not been convicted of any offence. Two years later British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror claimed that Sean Hughes was "The Surgeon" in this article, thereby naming someone the original author of the book making the claims didn't. Since then the Mirror's stance seems to have changed slightly. I haven't seen the full article as I've not got a Highbeam subscription but it can be seen here. It states "The identity of The Surgeon is controversial". A man was recently killed in Northern Ireland, and "The Surgeon" has been named as being involved in this story. It was added to the article with this edit, even though the identity of "The Surgeon" hasn't necessarily been confirmed for our purposes, as I'm not convinced the Mirror is a reliable source for a claim of that nature. The article isn't particularly neutral either, simply focussing on his alleged criminal activities and nothing about his background to balance it out. Policies the article may fail - original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and neutral point of view. In my opinion it's impossible to have a policy compliant article on Sean Hughes, so delete. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• strong delete - Notability issues, a BLP nightmare, poortly sourced - Alison ^❤ 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Notable only for being the subject of an unsubstantiated tabloid allegation, he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources". If there is to be an article about this, it should be under the title of The Surgeon (IRA member) (who appears to have had significant coverage), The Mirror's allegations could be given due (i.e not very much) weight in this article . Rockpocket 17:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. On further consideration I'm changing my !vote. This article in The Times notes, "GHQ staff has been without an operations officer since 2002 when Hughes, who held the post, was appointed to the army council". The appears to place him as an Army Council member directly, rather than as a proxy of an unconfirmed pseudonym. Its also provides a second independent (and somewhat more reliable) source for notability. I think we should be careful giving too much weight to the allegations about The Surgeon on a single tabloid source, but see no reason we shouldn't have an article for Hughes as a member of the IRA Army Council. Rockpocket 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Unless I'm missing something here, the sources available would allow something like a four sentence stub. There is no information about him in the usual books (and believe me I've looked), it's impossible to create an encyclopedic article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Lack of currently available information to create a full biography doesn't necessarily preclude the creation of a stub article now, if the information that is available establishes notability. If there was reason to believe that there was no possibility of further information becoming available I might concur, but I seen no reason to believe that. Rockpocket 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the benefit in keeping a stub saying someone is a former member of the IRA Army Council, in the hope that more information becomes available at a later date. Surely the best thing to do is delete and if more information becomes available recreate the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe it would be better, in general, but i'm not aware that is current policy. The wider principle is interesting: should we keep stubs on people who are notable but who we are currently unable to reliably expand on, beyond saying why they are notable? I would prefer to have that discussion rather than create precedence in deleting this stub on that basis. Rockpocket 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There's not sufficient reliable source material to establish notability for WP:BIO, and even if he did "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Given that by stating he's an IRA Army Council member we're saying he's committed a criminal offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, it's a WP:BLP problem in terms of WP:NPOV as that's all the article says. That is current policy, and it's a more valid deletion reason than WP:N is to keep. If it was a neutral stub (say about a notable sportsman) that would be a different matter, but as the article stands all it does it accuse the subject of criminal activity. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, I agree that we would have a BLP problem by stating he he's an IRA Army Council member. We are not stating that though. We are stating he has been named as an IRA Army Council member by reliable sources. Crucial difference. Rockpocket 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You'd better remove or rename that category then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. Done. Rockpocket 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless we can get more source to prove his elevated position in Óglaigh na hÉireann then it should be deleted.--Vintagekits 19:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Violations of WP:BLP are not reasons to delete an article. The fact that an article in its current state violates any policy is not explicitly a reason to delete it, and I don't believe there's any subject that is "impossible to have a policy compliant article about". The issue for an AFD is mostly whether the subject is notable and citable. This subject appears to be cited by a major publication, whether or not the publication is correct in what they say is not necessarily relevant. Cogswobbletalk 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've also removed the uncited controversial statements from the article, as per WP:BLP Cogswobbletalk 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've written about ten articles on IRA members, and I can assure you it's impossible to have a policy compliant article on Sean Hughes that asserts notability. The issue for this AfD is not notability, it's an inability to comply with core policies which is always a more important reason to delete than notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand - why is it impossible to have a compliant article? Just because a subject is controversial, doesn't mean there can't be a compliant article about it. WP:BLP doesn't preclude controversial statements from being made, it only precludes uncited statements from being made. Arguments for deletion should stem from one of the reasons listed here: WP:DEL#REASON. Cogswobbletalk 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment It all boils down to whether the Mirror is a reliable source for the claims that have been made, and given they named him then later said "The identity of The Surgeon is controversial" it's clear that it isn't reliable enough on this occasion. Without the Mirror, we'd be using original research to even add any information about "The Surgeon" to the article. So all you would be left with is an article about an Irish farmer who was convicted of benefit fraud? Sound notable to you? Such an article would in itself be a violation of WP:BLP1E, so it's impossible for a policy compliant article to be written. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's sourced to major British newspapers. Since when are the Times and the Mirror not acceptable sources? Nick mallory 06:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Mirror is a tabloid rag, so it's not acceptable when making claims the original author didn't for legal reasons especially when they say the identity of "The Surgeon" is controversial at a later date. Being sourced to major British newspapers does not stop this article failing WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and quite possibly WP:V and WP:OR as well, even ignoring the lack of non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is a tabloid rag? Information which appears in major newspapers isn't good enough for Wikipedia? Are you seriously using this as a deletion rationale? Nick mallory 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I would consider keeping if the sources were stronger. We must remember "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" - I would not consider the Daily Mirror (at best a rag) to be an exception source but I would consider that claimed an individual was a member of the IRA Army Council was an exceptional claim - the two dont match.--Vintagekits 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Does The Times (a "newspaper of record") work for you [6]? Rockpocket 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, no! that good enough for ya?--Vintagekits 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Times works for me, however it doesn't have enough information to build an article from. It doesn't contain the same information as the discredited Mirror, or confirm that Hughes is the person Hardnen is referring to. An encyclopedic article cannot be written from that news article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes I am using it as a deletion rationale. Biographies of living people is a non-negotiable policy, and policy is a far more importat deletion rationale than notability guidelines. As I've demonstrated, the Mirror aren't even consistent on the identity of "The Surgeon", so it's hardly an exceptional source is it? It's a sensationalist tabloid newspaper, the very sort of thing an encylopedia is not. You want examples of why the Mirror isn't reliable enough on this occasion? [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], and there's plenty more. As I say, tabloid rag. You want to use it for mundane information be my guest, but per policy it's unsuitable for sourcing libellous allegations that causes other sources not to use a name use for legal reasons, especially when they aren't even consistent on the identity of "The Surgeon". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that the article has been completely re-written from when nomination and comments above this were made. Two new, independent sources were added and the any claim that he is "The Surgeon" removed. There may still be issues with the article, but the points raised above may, or may not, be relevant to the article as it stands. Its probably worth another look of you have commented previously Rockpocket 08:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's now a gross violation of WP:NPOV, which cannot happen per WP:BLP. The current article is an absolute disgrace, and I'm appalled that an administrator would think it acceptable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What it is, is all the verifiable information available about him. That is as detailed as the article can be. Of course, it isn't balanced because we have no information about anything other than the allegations about him. The point of re-writing it was to show the extent of what the article can be (currently). I'm perfectly happy for it to be deleted on the basis that it is unbalanced and hence inherently POV, but that is a very different argument than people are making above (i.e. the Mirror is the only source and the only claim is that he is The Surgeon, these are no longer the case). Rockpocket 08:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "verifiable information available about him"? The issue isn't verifable information about him, it's largely verifiable libellous allegations that have been made about him, there's a big difference. I've never had that much of a problem with The Times, but that alone isn't enough as it's trivial coverage. The rest isn't verifiable information, firstly you've got a Unionist politican making libellous allegations safe under the legal protection of Parliamentary privilege. Then you've got the Mirror who have been repeatedly discredited. In 2005 they again proved their inconsistent stance with this article, where they fall back to "The Surgeon" not the unconfirmed accusation that Sean Hughes is "The Surgeon". Other media do the same, for example - [13] [14] [15] [16]. It seems you're hanging your hat on one article by the Mirror (who've frequently lost libel cases) which they seemingly no longer stand by based on two subsequent articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• What we have is two articles in the Times naming him as a hardline IRA man who was on the council. We have a MP quoting security sources saying in the same thing (and admittedly, using it to make further allegations that would be libellous but not for pp). Now we have a court ruling that says that Hughes himself claimed his picture was used in a book to represent an hardline IRA member. So we now have how many sources documenting this? One newspaper of record in two different articles, Hansard documenting what was claimed in the commons, a court publication quoting Hughes own claims. Is that "hanging your hat on one article by the Mirror"? There is one sentence in there attributed solely to the Mirror: that he was charged for conspiracy and being a member of the IRA previously, but cleared. I'm guessing those charges were not made against someone called The Surgeon, but probably someone by the name of Sean Hughes. So again, the Mirror naming him as the Surgeon is not in the article, so I don't see the relevance of the citations you provide above. Rockpocket 10:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• You would see the relevance, if you'd read the book, as you've just admitted you're guessing. Apart from all the details about the later mostly irrelevant court case, all the information in the Mirror article comes, wait for it, from Bandit Country. And later, they didn't stand by their identification of Hughes as "The Surgeon", and even the court ruling doesn't state it as a matter of fact. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, and neither do we (or even mention "The Surgeon" for that matter). So no problem there. Rockpocket 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Rockpocket. Aatomic1 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• I was about to close this myself, but thought better, as there may be an appearance of impropriety. As an alternative, I'll merely comment that this fellow does not meet the standards outlined under WP:BIO. Simply being a former Volunteer does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'll hope the closing administrator will realise this. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The only claims for notability are statements which are matters of dispute. The Sunday Times has often been willing to make sensationalised claims about senior IRA members, and the book is written from an anti-IRA perspective. It is best to follow the approach that the more extreme the claim, the better the sources need to be, and my judgment is that these sources do not make it over the bar. Strict application of WP:BLP would reduce this article to almost nothing and I am not convinced the subject is notable, even if we accepted what has been claimed about him. Sam Blacketer 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Busybody

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

Appears to be a load of bloated original research in an attempt to expand on a dicdef. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I'm not sure that anything can be written about this subject that can't be better treated at articles like gossip, and everything in the current article seems to be original research and/or trivia. EALacey 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Subdolous 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. AndalusianNaugahyde 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The term could be notable if properly sourced and if somebody came up with a cogent article about the phenomenon (not the word). But this article isn't. There's nothing salvageable here (it can't even be stubbified), and no compelling reason why we need to cover this.Wikidemo 22:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild 08:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Viral Thaker

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

fails WP:BIO. PROD was contested (probably should have requested speedy deletion). Snigbrook 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:COI--Esprit15d 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article tries to assert notability by discussing the importance of the company he works for, but notability is not inherited (essay). The statements that he "is rated the well known Head Hunter" and "Honored as the best Head Hunter in Chennai" by world-wide-jobs.com seem to mean only that he was listed in their directory, which is apparently open to anyone who fills in a form. His other achievements don't seem very notable (e.g., internal company awards), and don't seem to have translated into independent coverage. EALacey 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete probably should have been an A7/speedy deletion. Does get half an amusement point for listing what kindergarten the guy went to(!) though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I beg to defy but the person in this artical is well known in the industry. All the objectionable details in the artical are removed and the artical has been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.49.114 (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unfortunately, it's not enough to assert that someone is well known. He has to meet our notability guideline for people, which requires him to have "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". The article does not cite any such sources. EALacey 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think the the publisher of this artical has given a few sources which are reliable. He is also the owner of a blog The Alchemist which appears very often in a search engine. Though certain content(s) of the article are debatable and needs cleaning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.5.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment have you any references other than content he has created himself? How often does the blog appear in a search engine? (Also I noticed your IP address 61.12.5.50 is allocated to 'Team Lease Services Pvt Ltd'[17] which is his employer according to the article.) Snigbrook 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. @pple complain 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

MindFreedom International

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

Non-notable; fails WP:ORG, no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Article is yet another anti-psychiatry coatrack as well, but lack of notability is the primary issue. There is a reference to Patch Adams in the article, but no sourcing and he does not appear directly connected to this organization. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom--Esprit15d 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [18] [19] [20] (This one may fail Independent status but not sure [21]) [22] [23] 153.90.88.9 01:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Er... not sure I would call those reliable sources... MastCell ^Talk 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    
    • Utne Magazine is a reliable, secondary source. Coverage in utne alone takes care of WP:V. It is also strong support for meeting WP:ORG. I will add my keep vote below, with more argument. AubreyEllenShomo 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

David Oaks (founder of MindFreedom) and and Dendron are mentioned in the full text of this scholarly article Electroshock and Informed Consent- according to a Google Scholar search on David Oaks. Dendron is the former name of Mindfreedom.org. The full text of that article is only available to subscribers. is it a valid reference if Dendron is not in the abstract ? David Oaks shows up in a Google Scholar search of this book : Disability Protests: Contentious Politics, 1970-1999 By Sharon N. Barnartt, Richard K. Scotch
David Oaks' opinions have been published by the journal Psychiatry Online in their editorial opinion section. The Evolution of the Consumer Movement I will add that as a valid reference to the mindfreedom entry.Padraic10441 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say his "opinions have been published", you mean that the journal printed a letter to the editor from Oaks. Letters to the editor from a founder of said organization are not really independent, reliable secondary sources for the purpose of establishing notability. I've had letters to the editor published a few places... does that make the associated orgs notable? MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference in the mindfreedom wikipedia entry to the original Psychiatric Services article that prompted Mr. Oaks letter. This article cites both the antipsychiatry movement of the 1970s-80s, the modern mental health consumerist movement, and Mindfreedom -on this page-865 srch keyword MindFreedom of the full text pdf. Psychiatric Services is a serious, mainstream scholarly journal. The authors of that article chose to label MindFreedom as 'radical' when in fact it tries to take a centerist stance, including ackowledgement that some of its members take prescribed psychiatric meds. The fact that Psychiatric Services chooses to mention MindFreedom shows that the APA and mental health treatment conservatives take MindFreedom seriously, even though they have their own professional bias.Padraic10441 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I will look for more references when I have time. There are more. Note that editing this article is a VOLUNTEER effort on my part. I have other obligations. I am sure that Mindfreedom is as important an organization in this domain as the National Alliance on Mental Illness -- but Mindfreedom has a different perspective on patient treatment and stabilizing mental health behaviours than NAMI does. I will continue to read wikipedia's style guides and mission statements to ensure I am within guidelines in my edits-- and ensure myself that being a wikipedia editor is something worthwhile. Thanks for having patience while I am learning. Padraic10441 20:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Mind Freedom International and its Director, David Oaks, do appear to be what they claim to be: A coalition of 100 or so grassroots organizations in more than a dozen nations comprising the largest and most well-known coalition of "psychiatric survivor" or "consumer" advocacy organizations in the world. The documentation for this can be found in numerous places. Here is a partial list:

A German association of survivors held a conference in which some of the biggest names in the movement spoke. Featured was the Director of MFI, David Oaks. A video of his talk is on the German group's website: http://ki-art-multimedia.de/dresden/bpe.htm

Another psychiatric "consumers" advocacy group web site features a video of David Oaks, Director of MindFreedom: http://www.mentalhope.com/index.php?option=com_seyret&task=videodirectlink&Itemid=52&id=24

"Alternatives" is a quarterly online and print magazine that featured an article by David Oaks in 2006: http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/37/oaks.html

NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) reported on a well attended panel presentation in San Fransisco featuring well-known psychiatrist, Loren Mosher, and David Oaks: http://www.namiscc.org/newsletters/March01/loren_mosher.htm

Full Spectrum, a psychological health center in San Francisco has a seven member advisory board made up of very prominent psychologists and psychiatrists and two "consumer" advocates, one of whom is David Oaks: http://www.fullspectrumcenter.org/advisory_board.html

Here is a Washington Post article describing a hunger strike organized by David Oaks (who participated) and MFI. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0830-07.htm The American Psychiatric Association recognized the strike as significant enough to offer a formal response: http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/act/2003/mf-hunger-strike/hunger-strike-debate/apa-2nd-reply-to-mfi/

The LA Times profiles MindFreedom International and director David Oaks: http://www.mindfreedom.org/campaign/media/mf/losing-the-mind-david-oaks-and-others-in-the-mad-pride-movement-believe-drugs-are-being-overused-in-treating-mental-illness-and-they-want-the-abuse-to-stop

Freedom Center, the major survivor organization in the Northeast, has numerous articles about or referencing David Oaks and MindFreedom and links directly to MindFreedom: http://freedom-center.org

Likewise for the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology: http://www.icspp.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

I could continue to go through the web sites and print publications of the major survivor/consumer advocacy groups all over the world. MFI is simply what it claims to be, an organizing hub or coalition of these groups. This is not a very grand claim as these groups have little power when compared to organized psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. Yet, these grassroots groups are numerous and growing and all recognize MFI as important, if not central, in their cause. Kriegman 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about how much power they have compared to the pharmaceutical industry, and the focus on this sort of thing is an example of the WP:COATRACK issues here. Without independent, reliable secondary sources, it's impossible build a neutral encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur that many arguements here do not provide wikipedia-policy-compliant reasons to not delete the article. I agree such issues as the power of the pharmaceutical industry are irrelevant to this deletion discussion. I also understand antipsychiatry is given a bad rap at times, and it not uncommon for people to brush it off as crackpottery, regardless of my views on the matter. None of that matters here. What matters is that we have a notable, verifiable article. That, alone, is the standard for inclusion. That bias does or does not exist, in the world at large, against the group or its views is irrelevant. Only the aims of wikipedia matter here, and they are served by inclusion. Mindfreedom's inclusion is not about WP:SOAP or WP:COAT. It's about a valid, verifiable, article on a topic of notable and encyclopedic interest. AubreyEllenShomo 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty clear by now that articles on mindfreedom.org or referring to mindfreedom exist in the archives of the NYTimes, LATimes, Wash Post. They need to be documented as references, and this will be done. Also articles exist at NAMI and pschiatryonline.org referring to mindfreedom, and they hold different points of view on psychiatric health from mindfreedom. These will also be documented as references. I disagree that this article has to be a coatrack if it can be written and maintained NPOV and documented with references.Padraic10441 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources (LA Times, WA post, etc) need to be examined. There is some material on David Oaks there, but the mention of MindFreedom (at least in the WA post piece) is trivial - the organization is named in passing. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

MindFreedom is the primary focus of the Utne article, at the very least. Trivial coverage, while not supportive of a notability claim, does not damage one. Considerable trivial coverage, so long as there are also multiple non-trivial, independent sources, is sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:ORG. AubreyEllenShomo 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was asked to intervene and made some major changes to the entry. It has been streamlined to focus on the organization's activities and the quotes and other non-POV items have been eliminated. mcm —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I want to put an initial notice of support to NOT delete this article while I investigate the claims. Thankyou. DJ Barney 13:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note only. I added two journalistic references from papers in two states, lessening further any supposed WP:V and WP:N issues. AubreyEllenShomo 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons I have argued in my rebuttals to MastCell. Generally: (1) multiple WP:V friendly sources exist. (2) WP:ORG is met by multiple non-trivial independent journalistic sources. (3) Many, many, references of some nature exist, per google test (42,500 results) and various national news outlets. While this isn't strong evidence, it only further strengthens points 1 and 2. (4) This article is worlds away from a WP:COAT, given the sources from points 1 and 2. Further, even though this article isn't covered by WP:COAT, WP:COAT is not a wikipedia policy guideline, but rather an essay only. An article that meets WP:N and WP:V surely cannot be a WP:COAT anyway. WP:V and WP:N are what matter here, and they're met. AubreyEllenShomo 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DISCLOSURE OF WP:COI. I, AubreyEllenShomo, as can be seen on my userpage and the net at large, have a vested interest in the keeping of this article. The nature of that interest is that I am a supporter and member of Mindfreedom, and a supporter of its aims and goals. I have personal expierence sufficient to bias me strongly in favor of MindFreedom and its aims. Details can be seen here [24], [25], [26], among others. AubreyEllenShomo 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

VALIDITY OF POSITION, DESPITE WP:COI. I note that, while I'm not the sort of user who would win an RfA, I have many edits to the mainspace, as well as participation in various AfDs casting reasoned keep and delete votes as I see proper. I have nominated multiple articles for deletion, myself. I see this AfD as no different than the others. I ask the closing admin to consider my argument, and the lack of an overwhelming or even substantial number of delete votes for this AfD. While I am biased, my argument rests on verifiable sources and wikipedia policy, not my personal feelings or biases. To the extent my argument is neutral, valid, and couched in wikipedia policy, it should stand despite my COI. Surely, at the least, there is no consensus to delete in this AfD, as needs to be present for a deletion to succeed. AubreyEllenShomo 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I see it the heart of the reason for wanting Mindfreedom removed is the organizers opposition to the chemical imbalance perspective of mental illness. While I have found the organizer to be unreasonable and argumentive, Mindfreedom also does much good. The chemical imbalance perspective is a misleading oversimplification which many have used to discredit other perspectives, but I believe at its core it is also very useful. The food you eat, how often you smile, or have sex, or walk...pretty much anything you do, including take drugs, be they prescribed or not, can affect the chemical composition of the blood and neuro-spinal fluid in the brain. Parameters for the various neurotransmitters have not been established and will likely vary between sexes, individuals and the indivuals ability to react to stress. When the brain goes out of balance from this perspective the odd behaviors which typify mental illnes results. Extreme stress can also release corticosteriod from the adrenal glands in sufficient quanties that the hippocampus is physically shrunk, which affects its ability to communicate effectively with other portions of the brain. Lazyrenowriter 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I am a member of Mindfreedom, a psychiatric survivor and author of Mental Illness A Guide to Recovery. Lazyrenowriter 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Steven William Ashe

Steven William Ashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author whose cited works appear to have been vanity published thus failing WP:BIO. Can find no (web-based) reliable secondary sources to evidence notability & most of the 10 unigue ghits for "Steven William Ashe" are either as a result of this article or are self-contributing listing sites. • nancy • 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The absence of independent reliable sources is the kicker for me. That pushes this subject into the realm of undemonstrated notability and lack of verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per C.Fred. When the external link is a MySpace page...it's never a good sign. Smashville 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per non-notability, and no reliable sources. K. Scott Bailey 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fovean chronicles

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

Fails WP:BK and WP:WEB. I have searched for independant reviews and found none. The article appears to have been created by the books' author, and reads like an ad. Yilloslime (t) 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 9 ghits ("-wikipedia" used) with nothing coming close to a reliable source. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom. Article looks more like a promo. MrMurph101 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Self-published book by non-notable author. Google search revealed no reviews or non-wikipedia references to the book. Offered for sale on www.lulu.com [27], where it has received exactly one reader response.-Hal Raglan 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete - Yahoo search revealed discussions of the book on Sennadar.com [28][29], rpg.net http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=313469, dmoz.org [30] and lulu.com[31]. The call to delete the article is a vindictive effort by Yilloslime over the way the editting of the Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy [[32]]. Oddly, the Hal Raglan and Yilloslime editors appear with the exact same opinions and actions in both locations -[[User:FoveanAuthor] 12:42, 4 November 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs)

• Comment Fovean Author has a rather obvious conflict of interest here, and anyways none the links he brings up are sufficient to establish his book's notability according to WP's standards. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Abstain. Apparently the website with the 11,000 fans of the first book is no longer up for us to see; I wish it were. In the old days the distinction between a real publisher and a vanity press was easy to make; Internet self-publishing blurs this, and such self-published works cannot always be readily rejected from WP consideration. However, it certainly doesn't help that the author wrote this article, nor does it help that the author's editing practices on WP political articles are quite misguided. Wasted Time R 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the website is still up: . If you don't like my assessment, you can read the books yourself from there and do your own review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovean Author (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per others. AndalusianNaugahyde 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rus Stewart

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

This article appears to have been created by someone with a conflict of interest. Sources do not verify this person's notability, and my own google search didn't turn up better evidence of notability; just a MySpace page, CDBaby link, and similar. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. I could not find any reliable sources either. Toddst1 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete could not find reliable sources for several of the claims of notability in the article. SkierRMH 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

People of Mildesta

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

it's very hard to tell what this is all about. context is utterly lacking and so is any kind of evidence that this is a notable subject. some of this should be merged into the main article (wherever that might be) but most of it falls under the "why should anyone other then a fan care" category -- and that is best left to fansites. ^Law/_Disorder 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge - Rave_Master looks like the main article. Dougie WII 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. Googled the first two and got only Wikipedia hits, didn't bother googling the third. Extremely doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF.Ridernyc 00:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all of the above. Bearian'sBooties 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Any possible merger is an editorial matter. Sandstein 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional militia movement

Constitutional militia movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The new article Constitutional militia movement (after the original research is removed) is almost entirely identical and overlapping scope with the existing article Militia movement (United States). The Militia movement (United States) article is a better start at the creation of an article to cover this topic, because 1) It has a better title to cover the topic 2) because the subject matter is United States centric and 3) the title is more 'neutral' as opposed to 'Constitutional' which is a word with POV connotations to some. SaltyBoatr 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It must also be noted that the person who created this article is the same person who appears to the founder and lead spokesman[33] for an organization calling itself The Texas Constitutional Militia. SaltyBoatr 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ---

• Strong keep The article Militia movement (United States) (which has also been nominated for deletion) as presently written is highly biased against a lumpting together of several rival movements, so violates WP:NPOV. That could be corrected by almost totally re-writing it to be neutral, as the Constitutional militia movement article currently is, so far. So we have an edit war.

It does seem clear that an article on some kind of militia movement is needed to contain material now in other articles, such as Militia and Militia (United States), which unbalance them. A movement, any movement, is a distinct topic from the subject of concern for the movement, although links from one to the other are certainly appropriate.

One way to resolve such a dispute would be to fold the two articles into one, with each name directing to the same article, but in this case that does not seem to be the best solution.

First, no evidence has been provided that there are any militia movements outside the United States that would suggest a collection of militia movement articles with the names of countries in parentheses for each of them. If the need for such articles is later established, the need for this article can be re-asserted, perhaps to contain a list or sections on different kinds of militia movements, in the United States or elsewhere.

Second, the article in its present state is not only biased against what it treats as a single movement, it commits a WP:OR violation by lumping what appear to be several distinct movements into one, and attributes to all the movements the negative attributes of one of those movements. Adherents of the Constitutional militia movement self-identify by that name, to distinguish themselves from other movements which which they might be confused, and to which they are actively hostile. Moreover, the rival movements seem to have little in common other than a willingness to take up arms. They have quite different objectives, agendas, and methods. Furthermore, no evidence has been produced, even by the critics, that the rivals of the constitutional militia movement even style themselves "militia", especially since 1994 when the rivalry became intense and the constitutional miltia movement adopted the word "constitutional" to distinguish itself from its rivals.

Third, there is evidence, to be produced later, that there are constitutional militia movements in other countries, where they are also distinguished from armed groups, usually separatists of some kind, which are often called "militias" by their critics as a pejorative, but which almost never adopt the word for themselves. If enough such movements in foreign countries emerge, then it may become appropriate to disambiguate them into country articles, and there would then need to be an article Constitutional militia movement (United States).

So far, the rival in this edit war, SaltyBoatr, seems to exhibit only anti-militia bias masquerading under an excessively fastidious application of Wikipedia policies beyond their common-sense intentions.

Finally, since there is this confusion of rival movements, the best solution, rather than to make one article the field for an edit war, is to create other articles, one for each of the rival movements, and if critics of the other movements want to weigh with their criticism of each such movement, they may do so. There are already articles on Christian identity and Skinhead that may represent the beginning of such a collection of movement disambiguation articles. Jon Roland 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

comment It must be noted or disclosed that Jon Roland was the creator of this article. diff SaltyBoatr 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge as a POV content fork. Plus, its title does not indicate country of origin. Many countries have constitutions, and many countries have militias. 132.205.99.122 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response Most countries have written constitutions, but I do not find any with "militia" written into them (as three clauses and one amendment, see Militia clause), except Switzerland. A few countries (Switzerland, Israel) have active militia systems, but little sign of a "movement" in them to strengthen those systems. Using the definition of "militia" of Founder George Mason, "the whole people, except for a few public officials." (Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788), all countries have militia, but little evidence is apparent that many of those countries have militia movements to activate such systems. A section has been added into which material on the constitutional militia movements may be added if anyone can find some. Jon Roland 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Although I appreciate Mr. Roland's sincere beliefs, this article, it makes a lot of assumptions and unsourced statements about what "they" believe in. It's implied that the various militia movements have a common goal (proper and safe use of firearms). Even worse is the fantastic statement that the members expect that they might be "called upon" by local, state or -- forgetting about Waco, Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City -- "the president of the United States". And then they will "uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism". Finally, there's the list of militia-related organizations which has to be read to be believed. Sorry, not in your wildest dreams. Mandsford 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response Perhaps you could be more specific about wnat assumptions and statements you think need to be sourced. I have only just begun writing the article, and can't devote full time to this kind of thing. I have already added several cites since you wrote this, and I will have many more within a few days. It is not a valid objection that it is 'fantastic" that the activists "expect" something, although that is not quite what I wrote. It is easy enough to confirm that many of them do expect that, whether you consider their expectation well-founded or not. Most "Christians" expect the Second Coming of the Messiah, and some people might consider that "fantastic", too, but it is not "fantastic" to report that they expect it, and I will have supporting cites for that by and by. It is not clear how your objection to the list of "militia-related organizations" violates any Wikipedia editing policy. You should be prepared to argue for or against inclusion of particular organizations, but your first impression is not persuasive of your editorial objectivity. I selected them because they all engage in activities that promote skills useful to militia, and I can eventually support the inclusion of each, showing how many of the same people active in the movement are also active in those organizations, precisely because they do support the development of such skills. When you become more familiar with the subject matter I expect you will better appreciate these points, at least if you are able to put aside your ideological blinders and embark on straight reporting. Jon Roland 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork created to bypass dispute resolution process, full of ludicrous statements of belief presented as fact. --Dhartung | Talk 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response All of the statements will be supported in due course. What you call "statements of belief" appear to be my statements based on eyewitness experience, but of course I can't report that because that would be OR. Some would require me to assemble all the websites of all the groups that self-identify as "constitutional militia" and link to one another to show that they are a distinct movement that disagrees with other groups or movements that have been lumped with them by outside critics, but doing that analysis would be OR, too. Robert Churchill, a historian at the U. of Hartford, is working on a book that I expect will cover all this, but it isn't finished yet. Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, clear advocacy of a position. --arkalochori ^|talk| 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Response My only position in this Wikipedia framework is to report the subject straight, which has not been done in other articles. You will notice that I do not use judgmental "value" words in discussing things. I sdon't try to say who are the good guys or the bad guys, only to report on verifiable facts, ecen if it may take a while longer to find and post all the verifications. Things like old newspaper articles or government documents, buried in boxes or archives, sometimes take a while to uncover. As to the criticism that the word "constitutional" is itself a bias word, that is ill-made. The movement is about the Constitution, which makes it "constitutional", whether you agree with it or its position on constitutional interpretation or not. Our only job in this enterprise is to accurately report on what has been happening, not filtered by our feelings about it. Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Response There is a fundamental problem in writing articles about "movements", especially "loose" movements, composed of many individuals holding diverse views and engaged in diverse activities, even in opposition to one another. It is POV to lump together people as a single movement whose activists don't self-identify as a single movement. It is also a category error. As neutral editors we should disaggregate (disambiguate) groups of people respecting their preferences and beliefs, not those of outsiders, especially their opponents or critics. This also applies to the discussion on deletion of the Militia movement (United States). It would be acceptible to me to keep that article if it were re-written to more closely resemble an article like Protestant, which distinguishes the various Protestant sects from one another and even from other sects like Mormons that do not identify themselves as "Protestant". A sense of this can be seen by doing some Google groups searches on "constitutional militia" for several time periods to get a sense of what people, both supporters and opponents, were saying on the subject:

• Much of the documentation on this movement appeared online, initially in Usenet groups. See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/94-12/21/97.
• See search results on groups.google.com for the period 01/01/04-present.

Jon Roland 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Response A useful site on this topic is one on "Militia Movement" from Apologetics:

The militant arm of the Patriot Movement. Organized, armed groups that claim to defend the U.S. Constitution (from real or perceived enemies).

The FBI distinguishes Constitutional militias and hate groups:

Federal agents and militia members say the outreach program helps distinguish true Constitutional militia members from hate groups and changes the public perception that militias are "anti-government."

See also Militias: Initiating Contact, by James E. Duffy and Alan C. Brantley, M.A.

But a source of confusion can be seen in the FBI document Project Megiddo which announced plans for the general warrantless detention of all kinds of dissidents in case of a national crisis (such as Y2K), which was widely discussed as confirmation of the threat of federal tyranny:

V - Militias

The majority of growth within the militia movement occurred during the 1990s. There is not a simple definition of how a group qualifies as a militia. However, the following general criteria can be used as a guideline: (1) a militia is a domestic organization with two or more members; (2) the organization must possess and use firearms; and (3) the organization must conduct or encourage paramilitary training. Other terms used to describe militias are Patriots and Minutemen.

That might make working sense to the author of the FBI report, and perhaps to reporters, to lump anyone meeting that definition into a single group or movement, but it shouldn't be difficult to discern the problems with it for purposes of Wikipedia editing.

Jon Roland 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Jon, you can't put up "Strong Keep" a second time. Wikipedia isn't a vote, but comments other than your position (keep, delete, etc) are labelled "comment" or "response". Easily fixed, no big deal, but it causes confusion. Mandsford 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response Okay, sorry. Still learning my way around here. Jon Roland 03:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

comment The Duffy and Brantley ref given by Jon Roland, above, fails to establish notability for two reasons: 1) That source appears unpublished, failing WP:RS 2)The phrase 'Constitutional militia movement' does not appear in that pdf article. Also, the link path to the supposed 'fbi.gov' article is broken, so confirmation is not possible. SaltyBoatr 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Several points:

• (1) A "militia movement" is not the same as "militia", and deserves its own article.
• (2) "Constitutional militia" is not the same as "militia", as that term has come to be used by outsiders and antagonists. There is indeed a category error in combining different things under the same label, and even if many people do not correctly disambiguate, we should do so. The article Militia (United States) can already serve as the article for "constitutional militia", with the removal of some biased content about the improperly combined movements as characterized by outsiders and antagonists. But "constitutional militia" or "constitutional militia (United States)" should be redirected to it.
• (3) "Constitutional militia movement" is not the same as "militia movement", and deserves its own article that makes that clear. If militia movement (United States) is to be kept, perhaps because many people do use the term, it should be reworked into an article that lists or has separate sections for the several different and even rival movements sometimes so labeled and combined.
• (4) In a comparison of this article to militia movement (United States) I find:

• (a) This article is emerging to satisfy WP:NPOV while the other, in its present state, does not.
• (b) Sourcing is already good and getting better, although there is room for improvement. If an editor has doubts about some point, instead of deleting it (or the article), he should first try to discover whether it is not supported by an existing note or reference, and if not, add a note or reference that does, or insert a tag to request one, then allow some reasonable time for someone to respond.
• (c) The references supporting this article are more objective and have more scholarly integrity than those that support the other, which, like the infamous work of Bellesiles, seem not just to have a POV, but to be "hatchet jobs" in a war of ideas. Perhaps they deserve their own article or section in some "countermovement" article.

• (5) I am disappointed in the obvious POV of some of the editors calling for deletion. You don't even make an effort to conceal it. I for one am learning a lot from this debate that I wouldn't learn by just reading the articles, and suggest that, after keeping the article, this debate be copied to its Talk:Constitutional militia movement page. The article already contains much valuable material, well presented, and I hope to see what else may be added. While I am skeptical of some points Jon Roland makes, I am not sure I will not come to agree with him as I learn more, and I urge the rest of you to approach the subject with the same spirit of discovery.

Bracton 14:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. None of Bracton's five reasons given above pertain to the policy question at hand WP:DEL#REASON. As I see it, the main WP:DEL question is WP:N. To evaluate notablity, I suggest that a Google web search test would be a poor choice, because of a preponderance of advocacy websites failing WP:RS. Instead, I propose a Google book search as a proximate test of notability. Books, which have passed the threshold of editorial oversight from reliable publishing houses gives control for non-reliable advocacy skew. A Google book search[34] finds no books with the phrase in the title, and only two books with the phrase "Constitutional militia movement" in the book body text, very few indeed. Therefore the article title phrase fails a notability test.

And additionally, the first book; Searching for a demon : the media construction of the militia movement by Steven M Chermak, Northeastern University Press, 2002. ISBN: 1555535429 contains the phrase only once, in lower case, on page 101. Yet the title of this book is phrased 'militia movement'. This favors the title for this topic should be Militia movement (United States). The second book; Militias in the new millennium : a test of Smelser's theory of collective behavior by Stanley C Weeber; Daniel Gilbert Rodeheaver University Press of America, 2004. ISBN: 0761827897 [35] uses the phrase, also, only once, capitialized, on page 109, but only in the appendix, and even there it is described as a 'coded message' used by militia movements. In short this article should be deleted for failing the WP:N guideline standards. SaltyBoatr 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. I agree that among the reasons offered in the WP:DEL#REASON policy the only one that might apply is the WP:N guideline (not a policy), but using books as the sole criterion is stacking the decks, especially if most of the books are actually being funded by an advocacy organization, as has been alleged. (And that should be investigated.) There are many notable subjects that do not appear in scholarly books, or even in journal articles, and never will. But the phrase does appear in scholarly articles, including one by Richard Churchill that used the phrase "militia movement" in 1999 but "constitutional militia movement" in 2003. It is also possible that the same idea might be expressed by some investigators in synonymous terms that won't show up using a string search. I find particularly persuasive that the FBI would differentiate several movements and describe the acceptible one in terms that have a synonymous meaning, or use the phrase "constitutional militia" in one news report when actually talking about a movement. Neutral scholars and government agencies present a weighting on notability that transcends counts of books, especially POV books. Bracton 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Books funded by an advocacy organization? Northeastern University Press and University Press of America do not appear to be advocacy organizations. SaltyBoatr 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response Such publishers also do not pay the authors to write the books. It is common for private groups to issue grants to willing scholars to write books with a certain POV, leaving it to them to then find a publisher, or finding one for them, and sometimes even subsidizing the publication, which such publishers are often all too willing to accept. The key is to examine the content to see if it is written in a neutral, scholarly way, or as a polemic, with a lot of pejorative adjectives. See Chip Berlet. Jon Roland 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I always try to WP:AGF, so therefore I regret to mention that looking at the edit history of Special:Contributions/Bracton I notice that he/she only recently began editing on Wikipedia yet displays a depth of knowledge of Wikipedia customs typical of an experienced editor. Also, the narrow attention to Militia articles is remarkable. Further, the user name Bracton appears to be an obscure reference to Henry de Bracton which would be indicative of a constitutional historian. These are all circumstantial observations which raises a question as to whether Bracton is serving as a sock puppet or a meat puppet. SaltyBoatr 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep

This article is fair, balanced, accurate, and scholarly. It meets Wikipedia standards. Mcarling 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment None of these four reason are found as relevant in the WP:DEL#REASON standards. SaltyBoatr 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Response It appears he was arguing against the reasons for deletion made by some of the previous editors above, which did not invoke WP:DEL#REASON, but only what translates into WP:NPOV. Perhaps the previous "voters" should reconsider in the light of this further argument and the improvements made to the article in the interim. Jon Roland 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the articles, and move to "militia movement." I'm disappointed that some people have jumped to the conclusion that this is a POVFORK, when the page histories show that this article was started FIRST. And while this article isn't NPOV, neither is the other one. Put the two together, and you might have a balanced article (or an edit war - sigh). And if which article gets primacy is going to be decided based on which title is "better," the other one has an unnecessary disambiguator in the title. Other countries have militias, but there is no other "militia movement," at least none that English-speakers would be familiar with. --WacoKid 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. I have suggested in the Articles for deletion for the other article that it be reworked into a gateway disambiguation article to the many movements that are sometimes lumped together as "militia" by outsiders or antagonists, but that distinguish themselves or even see each other as rivals. The "(United States)" disambiguator is indeed unnecessary, but not breakout into rival movements. The other article could then have a short section on "Constitutional militia movement" and link to this one as the "main article". As a prudential matter, that might also tend to at least cabin some of the edit warfare that might consume too much attention by editors. Jon Roland 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Response. Not the right merge. I suggested merge or redirect of Militia movement (United States) (after removing "(United States)" to the Patriot movement article, with the "Christian" removed, because, from what I have been discovering, what are left after removing "Constitutional militia movement" from the mix seldom identify themselves as "militia" but often do identify themselves as a "Patriot movement" (but often as other than "Christian"). This article should be kept. In weighing reliable sources we should give primary weight in combining people as groups to insiders rather than outsiders. Bracton 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments below and per notability established by news articles specifically documenting the movement as distinguishing itself from other militia movements. DHowell 05:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rather, the standard to apply per WP:N is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources..." DHowell's Google News search found just four articles. This paltry number falls far short of meeting the "significant coverage" threshold. This begs the question: With so little 'reliable source' material available, (just four short articles that only mention the term in passing), just how will this article be written? And a corollary, after the original research is removed, what will be left in the article? SaltyBoatr 16:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on subjects that receive far less coverage in newspapers. WP:N says "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." There is no requirement for a significant number of sources, just that the sources available give "more than trivial" coverage. I'm sure you will probably still disagree that the referenced articles' coverage is "more than trivial", but keep in mind that was just a search for the specific title of this article. The actual subject of this article receives far more significant coverage, suggesting another title might be better; unfortunately a large amount of coverage of the "militia movement" appears to be from biased sources intent on lumping together those who desire to revive the militia envisioned by the founders of the Constitution with the various hate-mongering, racist, and domestic terrorist paramilitary groups which the media commonly calls "the militia movement". There does seem to be a need to differentiate what is described in this article from what is described in the Militia movement (United States) article. DHowell 06:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For documentation of the media bias against militia movements in general, see Searching for a Demon: The Media Construction of the Militia Movement. DHowell 06:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Militia movement (United States) and Militia. The existing article deals with generic and U.S. militias extensively, so most of the material is redundant. The unique material about "constitutional militias" could be handled in the U.S. article, while the etymology of the word "militia" should be in the "militia" article. As it stands, this article appears to be a POV fork. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from other page: Merge the articles, and move to "militia movement." I'm disappointed that some people have jumped to the conclusion that this is a POVFORK, when the page histories show that this article was started FIRST. And while this article isn't NPOV, neither is the other one. Put the two together, and you might have a balanced article (or an edit war - sigh). And if which article gets primacy is going to be decided based on which title is "better," the other one has an unnecessary disambiguator in the title. Other countries have militias, but there is no other "militia movement," at least none that English-speakers would be familiar with. --WacoKid 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Roland (talk • contribs)

• Keep -- Article looks like a good start, with plenty of references. Distinctly different from other articles. I don't see a problem with keeping this article (although it definitely needs work.) Yaf 00:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(As is customary for AfD's, the discussion about AfD votes occurs on the discussion page not the project page. The discussion previously located here has been moved to the discussion page located at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_militia_movement) SaltyBoatr 16:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Drake Circus Shopping Centre

Drake Circus Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing nomination for 81.132.102.112. Reason given is "not notable - based mostly on old news stories - inaccurate facts - advertising a shopping mall - incorrect trademark attribution - see discussion page". --- RockMFR 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note this may be a bad-faith nomination [36]. ELIMINATORJR 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete irrespective of whether it's bad faith, this is a small shopping centre in a not especially big place. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete: The sooner this article disappears down the pan the better. Its notability is in question even though the nominator's comment "based mostly on old news stories" means that it has actually had press coverage. The cost of the disruption to WP that this and its associated article (Drake Circus has caused outweighs its usefulness to the project. It most certainly is a bad faith nomination as well as a WP:POINT making exercise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the place is a nonentity in global terms. ---- WebHamster 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Change of mind. After seeing some of the comments here and doing some Google searches (144,000 hits on ""drake circus" -drakecircus.com"). In fact it's looking like it should be the Drake Circus article that's up for AfD, not this one. I couldn't find anything about Drake Circus on Google that wasn't related to the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 'comment' if i may quote you from a comment you posted on a discussion page 'wikipedia is not google'. In any event on googles first page we have [37] or [38] but as you say wikipedia is not google.81.155.65.71 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have no idea what your comment is trying to say, but the first link is not an independent source (and so what if some houses are being built there, that is no indicator of notability it just means there was some spare land there) and the second link is about the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 14:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you had forgotten this is what you advised another user ... "It looks like your complaint should be with Google not Wikipedia. WP does not control what Google indexes or how it is indexed. Google indexes are not verified by anyone and there is no requirement to do so as it its virtually totally automated. Rather than commit any more faux pas I suggest you click on Drake Circus then click on Drake Circus Shopping Centre and then report back on your findings. Meanwhile it may be prudent to reflect on the fact that Wikipedia is not spelt G-O-O-G-L-E. ---- WebHamster 15:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)" 81.155.65.71 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and...? ---- WebHamster 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

a large number of hits on a search engine are no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god.81.155.65.71 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why gHits are used contextually. In this context 144,000 hits for what you like to term "just some shops" is contextually relevant. gHits are not used as an absolute source, but they can be a reasonably reliable indicator in extremes. ---- WebHamster 14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

the second link appearing on page 1 of google for 'drake circus' or 'drake circus shopping' is indeed about the shopping centre - that is the shopping centre of the drake circus district - not the shopping mall - please try and understand the two are seperate and apart.81.155.65.71 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as more like "shops in the centre of Drake Circus" rather than as a "shopping centre". This site would not be considered to a WP:RS as the site is provided by one of the local shopkeepers, i.e. Silverstall Jewellers, and is therefore not independent. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this discussion, as is your Google digression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

which is a mall - separate and distinct from the shopping centre within the Drake Circus area (also appears on first page of google for drake Circus) - In case you had forgot the drake circus.com site is also provided by a local shopkeeper - albeit possibly a bigger one.Nicole 50dc 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: then the vandals will find another article they don't like: "nonentity in global terms" could apply to the vast majority of people/places that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. - Snigbrook 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  No comment on the first half, but I agree with the second half of what Snigbrook writes. Consider this, etc. etc. -- Hoary 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak and conditional delete Only claim to notability, if any, is its badness; if the opinion that it was an unparallelled atrocity were a published article rather than a website, I would support keeping this. Otherwise: there is a shopping centre; it has had cash flow problems; the neighbours object. Dog bites man. Include in the article on the neighborhood, if at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My condition has been met, so Keep or Merge. On the whole, I would prefer to see much of this condensed into Drake Circus, and some rewritten into an article on the Carbuncles Prize, which would of course keep the picture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WebHamster and Septentrionalis. Notability is shakey at best and someone needs to take away these bored students' soapbox. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Drake Circus. Sufficient notability but not sure of need for two articles. Snigbrook 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the shopping centre seems to be notable, maybe the Drake Circus article should be merged into this and other articles. Snigbrook 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  comment: actually the Drake Circus article is useless, as its purpose seems to be an attempt to prove a point that Drake Circus is an area that does not include the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Snigbrook 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the Drake Circus article is (or will be)an attempt to publish an account of a district that among other things brings together a rich variety of scientific, cultural, academic and historical institutions and values. The mall is not in the same area so you may just as well merge it into an article on Sir Francis Drake or Chipperfield Circus. Its only connection is the similarity of the name (its like merging an article on Paris Hilton into an article on Paris)Nicole 50dc 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete its contents are not verified as the 'official' site it refers to contains no or completely different facts. It is completely unheard of outside Plymouth and the references to the BBC links are extremely localized and old news. There also seems to be an issue/dispute over the use of an unlicensed logo/trademark which does inclusion of this article justify. As for 'merge' it is not in the Drake Cicus district and has nothing to with it other than sharing a similar name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This IP has, rather bizarrely, complained to himself about legal threats; otherwise, his edits are very few and devoted to this shopping centre. -- Hoary 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • In the course of trying to link to their terms and conditions page on their website it was mysteriously taken down and replaced with a pop-up. It then left my original post stranded with no reference. I tried to explain this on my user page but i admit not very well which is why i changed it. For obvious reasons i cannot and will not discuss my correspondence with other third parties. It seems more than a coincidence that their site was being rapidly changed last night/this morning when web archives will confirm that no pages had been updated for nearly a year and it seems obvious that whoever is operating that site is closely monitoring anything said on this site. In any event what has any of this to do with my original post other than your attempts to yet again divert or flame the orginal subject matter being discussed.
      • No, it was just a standard sock-puppet warning for the benefit of whoever closes this AfD. Meanwhile, enjoy your conspiracy theories but don't assume that they interest other people. -- Hoary 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In support of its (unwanted!) notability I've added to the article another link about the "truly awful" design, this one from The Times; and clarified that the Carbuncle Cup is awarded by Building Design, which is "the UKs best-read architectural weekly with a circulation in excess of 25,000, thats 70% of all architects across the UK."[39] --Smalljim 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete
  • 1. Its an advert for a few shops and/or a link to blatant commercial promotion such as spudulike
  • 2.Its chief resource is a dubious website which states 'drakecircus is the only covered mall in the south west'. That is untrue as there are many more in , Exeter, or the broadmead at bristoland even another covered shopping mall in plymouth
  • 3.There is little of any encyclopaedic value one can say about it.
  • 4.It disgracefully refers to the war memorial which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mall other than having the misfortune of being in the same city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: As the article is pretty much a stub "unencyclopaedic" isn't necessarily an accurate description. It's "chief resource" is not the website. Only minor details for the info box have been taken directly from the website (floor space, owners/developers, management company). The rest is either from editor input or external news sources.

Having a side-effect of being an advert is not a reason to delete an article. The article is not written in an advertorial manner, there's a difference.

The article does not describe the mall as being the only covered shopping mall in the south-west, the website does that so it has no relevance to this AfD.

I don't know why you choose to use the term "disgraceful" in relation to the war memorial. That's being non-NPOV and has no place on WP. The sentence in question "The new building, designed by Chapman Taylor Partnership and situated behind the ruined Charles Church, preserved as the city's civilian war memorial, has provoked a mixed reception." could hardly be described as being disgraceful.

So it seems that none of your points stand, add to the fact that this is a SPA account then I advise the closing admin to disregard the comments. ---- WebHamster 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

not written in an advertorial manner "..with a wide range of fillings. It has branches across Britain." on its spudulike stub. Or "It includes such retailers as Next, Primark, Waterstone's, Virgin, Spudulike, Burger King and Schuh, and abuts an enlarged Marks and Spencer.". If you want to turn wikipedia into a shopping directory then fine go ahead. Why is there an article on these few shops anyway? Why not allow any and every shop an article? I’m sure any local shop could dredge up some link to a news item about a shoplifter caught on its premises, or a vandalsim or opening soon or new manager etc etc.Nicole 50dc 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly the Spudulike article has no relevance to this AfD per WP:WAX. Secondly, thanks for your permission, I'm sure Jimbo will be so pleased. ---- WebHamster 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 5 references, at least two of which are both from RSs and substantial. That's more than most shopping centers. The nomination is apparently a dispute between whether the name applies to the area, the shopping enter, or the university located there. For documentation see the talk page of the article--where the various parties attempt to accuse each other of libel and other legal issues. See further the comments of WebHamster at the user page of one of the people who made the threats. [40]. (he has already been blocked for it by another admin). This should be speedy kept as an obvious bad faith and disruptive nomination. DGG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The main reference is the drake circus.com site which itself states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." Either it is out of date or it is accurate - either way it does not reconcile with any of the facts stated in the article. The other references relate to minor local news which again are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The main reference is not official website much as you would like it to be. Your arguments seem very similar to other SPA editors here so it could be a reasonable assumption that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Regardless of that please be aware that from a WP standpoint notability does not have a time limit and doesn't time out, therefore being "old news" is irrelevant. ---- WebHamster 14:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a shopping mall was opened in 2006, but they will care about e.g. the battle of hastings because that was a truly exceptional notable event.Nicole 50dc 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Article is sourced and appears to meet notability guidelines. Likely disruption is not a reason to delete an article. --Goobergunch|? 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Goobergunch. -- Hoary 07:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is an article on a few shops in a relatively small mall, whose web-site contradicts both itself and any facts stated in the article.81.155.65.71 14:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• - — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. example Tutankhamun

Actually it's an article about a new £200m shopping centre that has received considerable press. What the off-wiki website does or doesn't say is irrelevant to this AfD ---- WebHamster 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

comment It is the chief source upon which you base the article and it is factually wrong and out of date.81.155.65.71 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't the chief source. See above ---- WebHamster 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

make up your mind! In the discussion pages webhamster said

"I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from?" ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

“...The official website of the shopping centre is so far the most reliable source (per WP guidelines) we have.” WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your incessant contradictions are unneccassirly drawing out this discussion to a point where it becomes as unreadable as the discussion page. Please stop.Nicole 50dc 15:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your incessant trolling, misspelling and using quotes out of context is noted and will no longer be responded to, at least not by me. ---- WebHamster 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point made was to draw attention to the various contradictions you keep making. You elected for this article to be deleted - then you changed it to keep it - based on a few Google results which you kept on emphasizing were of no consequence. You kept on and on that drakecircus.com was the official site and now you are saying it is not. Anyone who dares to challenge you is labeled a troll or puppet or whatever and you block them. Why can’t we have a level-headed discussion?81.155.65.71 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no contradictions. It's all been spelled out to you in very basic terms. If you can't or won't understand then that's your problem, not mine. What is clear is that you are attempting to steer the discussion away from the fact that there now appears to be some notability much to your chagrin. Your digressions are transparent to the experienced editors here, as is your trolling. If you wish to learn then look at WP:Notability and WP:RS, if you don't then may I suggest you just read the sports page of the Daily Star. BTW, I'm done with your obtuse trolling. ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• stub it After endless discussion which just seems to go round and round in circles why not move this article into a stub from Shopping_mallsand move the article on Drake_circus into a stub from plymouth maybe review them both in a few months time and if they have not improved then delete them. 81.155.65.71 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should understand what a "stub" is before passing comments like this. ---- WebHamster 17:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I am not as experienced as you in whatever Wikipedia terminology is correct or wrong, but i thought a stub was an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. This article only has a few sentences and most of that is simply repeating what is in drakecircus.com.81.155.65.71 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It already is pretty much a stub so how do you suggest we "stub" it further? ---- WebHamster 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

o.k. so if it is a stub from Drake_circus- My point is to make it a stub from shopping malls81.155.65.71 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "stub from Drake Circus", neither can it be a "stub from shopping mall", it isn't a "stub" from anything. A stub is an individual article containing very little information. It may or may not belong in a category, it may or may not belong to a WikiProject but it doesn't come FROM anything. Does that explain it enough for you? ---- WebHamster 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete hey its a shopping mall that opened in 2006 - period - is that really notable? In Texas we have one in every town or city - hardly ground breaking news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.170.3 (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC) — 86.151.170.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Incidentally, this is a British Telecom IP.
  • Would that be Texas, Devon you're referring to? BTW, nice edit summary. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's not labor the point, Hamster. -- Hoary 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • see my discussion page - i note you cannot deny it is just a darn mall - instead just filling this page with yet more of your trolling.

*keep it but remove the links to the shops as to me it looks like an advert for those shops. I think maybe the history of the old shopping mall is more notable than the current mall particularly with reference to concrete cancer, the former occupiers of the office block, the way it acquired planning permission in the first place (i.e. the deal that was struck between P&O and the local council), the old shops that were demolished, the crane that collapsed during construction etc etc. All it needs is more impartial editing. (Less pro-v-anti mall) which hopefully might include reference to the good and the bad impact it has had on the local economy.Nicole 50dc 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Change of mind. To be factually accurate the shopping mall is called 'DrakeCircus' as evidenced by their logo and the signage on their building. The reason the developers did not add a space between Drake and Circus was to avoid confusion with the existing shopping centre within the Drake Circus area.Nicole 50dc 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And your evidence that they did this is what? Are you sure it's not just a design element? All publicity mentions and every reference to the place on their own website is Drake Circus Shopping Center (c/w space). That doesn't seem to me to be either demonstrating a desire to separate the two or to demonstrate that it's actually "drakecircus Shopping Centre" or are you attempting to show that the lowercase wording is significant too? ---- WebHamster 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[41]Please see the banner image of their entrance sign. All the signs throughout their building are similarily labelled 'DrakeCircus'. (I note www.Drake-circus.com. and all other 'Drake-circus' TLD's are still available)Nicole 50dc 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the same design element as in their logo. You have heard of maintaining design elements across different media haven't you? As regards the TLDs, so what, you will find that most company names in domain names forego the space, the rest of the supposition is an other example of your propensity for WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend that you look for written proof rather than images that contain elements of graphic design. Once again I note the absence of proof for another of your assertions. ---- WebHamster 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hamster, on 19:22, 5 November 2007 (see above) you were done with [this SPA's] obtuse trolling. I don't know about you, but I'm still done with it, and I suspect most people are too. -- Hoary 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I couldn't find my Yo-yo :P ---- WebHamster 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge its content back into a trimmed-down Drake Circus from whence it was recently split - see the Drake Circus AfD and my comments on that article's talk page. One article can easily cover the contents of these two minor and related topics. --Smalljim 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. See above - further research on Drake Circus has persuaded me that it is a notable feature of the city in its own right, though the current article is inaccurate. See my draft rewrite of that article here. So a merge would not be appropriate. --Smalljim 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Conker Pong

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

Prod removed by author. Article is about a beer pong variation made up at a bar. Wildthing61476 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete should be speedied. Bobby1011 15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:MADEUP - Dougie WII 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This assumption is factually incorrect. It was not made up in a bar (are there conkers in bars usually?!) and was witnessed by hundreds of people in Munich during Oktoberfest. It was also participated in by around 50 people, making it, in my opinion a significant event ... especially as it was done in the confines of the Englisher Garten in Munich - not a huge area, maybe with room for only 500 or so people.What needs to be found/shown in order to make this article valid?Brettstirling 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)— Brettstirling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Reply All you need to do to meet the notability guidelines is to provide links to verify that this is widely played. Newspaper and magazine articles will be fine. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I don't see how a drinking game invented just about a month ago could possibly be widely played and notable. Dougie WII —Preceding comment was added at 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ok guys, as I am new to Wikipedia, would you be good enough to give me a few days to collect some data and documentation to link to. Some pictures of our family involved in the game, and some notes etc.??? Hugh abu 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply None of those things are at all useful. You need reliable sources, like the newspaper articles that were written about this activity, or the books that have been written about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - beer pong can be played outdoors, and this is a thing made up one day --AW 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)$
• Comment I am working on reliable sources such as newspapers. I was simply suggesting that adding some pictures of people involved in the sport through the years may also be of use. If not then I apologise. Please have some understanding of the fact that I am working hard to establish this page which is based on a sport my grandfather introduced me to in Manchester over 30 years ago. Hugh abu 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is the competition my family usually enters: http://www.hentyarms.co.uk/id7.html Hugh abu 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Question How did this go from a game "first devised" in September, 2007 [42] to one that "has been enjoyed for many generations all over the UK."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie WII (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Answer I am not related to the writer of the article. The writer of the article is clear attempting to stake claim to the invention of the game. However, the game is well established and a famour UK drinking game. Hugh abu 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a sport I, as an Englishman, have heard of, despite numerous claims that it is recognised throughout the UK. The second link there also contains a bizarre bad faith assumption in "Again, a simple case of the US considering itself superior". It is obviously a made up game, and not one with any notability, and the only non-WP occurrence of the term on the internet appears to be this request ^{(registration required)} from earlier today for people to "save" the article. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm disinclined to believe this is truly a popular game, enjoyed by generations, etc. In fact it reeks of some random game made up by friends at the bar one day. But even if accepted at face value, it wouldn't be notable enough for an article of its own anyway. We don't need an article on every beer pong variation under the sun. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• If it's a variant on beer pong and the author can provide notable, reliable secondary sources to prove that, then it can perhaps have a bit in the beer pong article. Delete this, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 'Conkers' is a long standing traditional game familiar to every English child for perhaps hundreds of years. 'Conker pong' on the other hand is bollocks. Nick mallory 06:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' per WP:MADEUP. Doctorfluffy 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The current article satisfies verifiability as well as notability plus there were no votes to delete aside from nominator. --Polaron | Talk 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hot_Fudge

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hot Fudge

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

Notability, Verifiability Epthorn 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Added references and additional information to article. MatthewYeager 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is [[43]] that useful here? It's disclaimer warns that the website is not intended for users to rely upon. Notability of the article is still questionable to me. Epthorn 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Historical regional childrens' television program. Are there any notability guidelines for television series? - Dougie WII 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree the notability is defiantly questionable!!! i'm just trying to provide all the resources and references to properly decide that. i'm leaning towards delete, failing wp:n MatthewYeager 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While these are all just TV listings...a show produced by a local station in Detroit seemed to be carried by a lot of stations across the country. Smashville 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - A nationally syndicated children's show that ran for four years and won a Puppeteers of America award. Unfortunately no tapes exist of the show and it hasn't been seen since its first broadcast, which is why there is little information online about it. Pufnstuf 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild 08:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Horrorcore

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

Unverified neo-genre fanwork Deiz talk 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VERIFY, which states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." — Satori Son 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Gnews shows plenty of 3rd party sources. I seem to recall horrorcore being specifically covered as one of the industry's biggest gaffs on MTV at a minimum. Sources are available, but it appears effort is lacking. Horrorshowj 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I didn't find much through google news, but I did come up with quite a few references to the term in reliable media sources. I've done some work on the article adding those and trimming back the unreferenced, though a lot more is needed. I'm afraid of time personally. Nevertheless, I think that there's enough there now to assert and verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect (early non-admin close, seems non-controversial). Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kaczyński twins

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

Redirect to Kaczynski. Unnecessary disambiguation. See MOSDAB:Disambiguation pages with only two entries. Visor 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just do it, you don't need an AFD for that. For what it's worth, I agree with your suggestion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree too, so I'm being WP:BOLD Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, You're going to fix all the double redirects and incoming links you created, are you? If a job's worth doing... 172.213.190.117 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Non-admin closure. Feel free to revert if this is inappropriate. --Polaron | Talk 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Noblesville High School

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

• Delete: Non-notable per WP:NOT; possible WP:COI, advertising Maplewooddrive 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity -- my opinion is the same re this junky article -- why is/would every high school be notable?? If that were the case Wikipedia would be almost twice the size it is now.Maplewooddrive 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are four million high schools? Alansohn 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• No! There are on the order of 1 million primary schools on Earth. There are on the order of 10,000 high schools in the US. SolidPlaid 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Having grown up nearby, I can confirm that the school probably has some measure of notability, but there's no data here to support that. Further, though cleanup is not a reason to delete, the article itself appears to be unsalvageable. With all respect, a fresh start is warranted, with no prejudice to a properly sourced article being recreated in the future. ZZ ^Claims ~

Evidence 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Rewrite. If there was a school district page to redirect to, I'd say redirect it...but, there isn't...I would disagree with the advertising part, though...I don't think a public high school would have any reason to advertise. Smashville 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Smashville, if you think the article should be rewritten you should do so. Voting to keep and rewrite is no guarantee that the article will be properly rewritten and made notable if kept. It is kind of an easy way out. Maplewooddrive 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it myself. Smashville 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Maplewooddrive, voting to delete only sweeps the problem under the rug for now and makes it more likely that a recreated article in the future will be no better. Deletion is just an easy way out of your obligations of the nominator under Wikipedia:deletion policy to work to improve the article before proposing articles for deletion (which do not seem to have been met at all). The article as it stands now makes claims of notability, and can be a framework for future expansion so that it satisfies even your definition of notability. Deleting it accomplishes nothing. Alansohn 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — There is no consensus criteria for High School notability, so I use my own. This is a satisfactory stub article. — RJH (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is. It's the same thing EVERY article has to pass: WP:N. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right, TJ Maplewooddrive 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

• Keep - Major high school and consensus has shown that high school articles are kept. --Oakshade 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What is your rationale? Good admins will ignore votes like yours since you didn't give a reason. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've never seen a user attack a closing admin before an AfD closure. Good admins follow WP:CONSENSUS which feels that high schools are notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) and this AfD will likely demonstrate so. --Oakshade 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Outcomes is just an essay filled with opinions and unsourced statistics. Saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" is the worst thing to happen in AFD discussion since people started doing it a few months ago. Good admins listen to the arguments, and the fact is that this article does not (in its current state) pass the guidelines and policies in place. OUTCOMES is an opinion piece, and thats it. TJ Spyke 04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates current WP:CONSENSUS on various subjects including high schools. I guess this needs to be bold, Stop attacking and insulting closing administrators. --Oakshade 06:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Where have I attacked anyone? I am just stating what a good admin should do. Also, OUTCOMES is unsourced and shows no proof for the consensuses stated on that page. Also, in the last year or so many school related articles have been deleted (whereas they used to be kept for no reason). If people are going to cite that opinion page, it should have sources. TJ Spyke 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Also, in the last year or so many school related articles have been deleted... Grade schools maybe, but high schools? I've asked this before: give one example of a high school article that was actually deleted within the last three months. Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Noting in the article says why the school is notable or deserves an article. Fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since mainstream high schools are almost always shown to be notable, I think the onus is on the delete !voters to show that they have researched the school and did not find any independent media coverage. Zagalejo^^^ 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the burden of proof lies on those claiming an article to be notable. Also, citing OUTCOMES is like citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because some other high school article was kept doesn't mean all should. TJ Spyke 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a deep and fundamental difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OUTCOMES. All WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does is state that there happen to be other articles similar to the one in question that exist on Wikipedia. WP:OUTCOMES indicates that similar articles have been run through the Articles for Deletion gauntlet multiple times (for high schools, it's well into the hundreds), and the consistent result has been that these articles reach a consensus for retention. As with places, highways and state-level elected officials, consensus is that high schools are notable. This consensus demonstrated by the results of hundreds of such AfDs for high schools is an extremely meaningful guide for retention of this article and all other high school articles. Alansohn 04:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • • There is a deep difference in your examples. There are guidelines that say places and highways are automatically notable. There is nothing (except for the opinions of some editors) that says schools are automatically notable. Just because high school articles are usually kept or redirected doesn't mean all high school articles should automatically be kept (hence the comparison to OTHERCRAPEXISTS). One other thing, nobody used to cite OUTCOMES in school related AFD's until about 2-3 months ago (while I was gone from Wikipedia), what happened? I have seen too many AFDs ruined by people saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" and not offering any actual reason to keep the article, these people don't seem to realize that school articles are not exempt from WP:N (a guideline, rather than just an opinion like OUTCOMES). TJ Spyke 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Consensus is built based on evidence of broad editor opinion on a wide range of articles in a substantial number of Articles put up for deletion. Despite the fact that it is those articles deemed "least notable" that are sent to AfD, the clear consensus in the overwhelming majority of such AfDs is that articles for high schools are notable. WP:OUTCOMES merely reflects that there is a clear majority consensus on this matter, as has been developed for places, highways and state-level elected officials. The notability of these articles has been proven over and over again, and WP:OUTCOMES aims to avoid wasted time by reflecting the overall community opinion on the issue. Alansohn 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
            • • Except that there is no proof of this so called consensus, and those other things you listed have guidelines in place establishing notability level. There is none for schools (there was an attempt at WP:SCHOOLS, but it failed to reach a consensus). That means that school articles have to pass policies and guidelines like WP:N, and opinions (and so-called consensus) do not trump guidelines and policies. TJ Spyke 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• I am so sick of OUTCOMES being used as any sort of rationale. It has no authority, and is not a good gauge of consenus, and even if it was, it's still not important. There is nothing to show this a notable school, and thus should be deleted. i (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OUTCOMES is an excellent gauge of WP:CONSENSUS as it provides previous editors consensus on many very specific topics that aren't addressed by specific guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:CORP. --Oakshade 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Previous consensus, yes. But as consensus can change, citing only OUTCOMES means nothing. i (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• When consensus changes, WP:OUTCOMES changes with it. --Oakshade 00:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And where is the proof that any of the statments on OUTCOMES are the general consensus? TJ Spyke 04:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Charging bad faith on the editors of WP:OUTCOMES are we? As you've been asked before, find one example of a high school article being deleted in the last six months. I know there have been something like 100 up for AfD (I keep close taps on this category) and I personally don't recall one. Even if there is one or two (which I doubt), WP:OUTCOMES would be correct as a vast majority, if not all, high school articles have been kept per WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to manually check each AFD day? That would take over an hour. Anyways, just because other articles are kept is no reason to automatically keep another (that is covered at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not assumed bad faith anywhere, I am stating that a good admin should listen to the arguments in THIS AFD, and the effects on other articles have no bearing on this one (see my previous sentence). TJ Spyke 05:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to attack the closing administrator for being "bad" if they follow consensus, fine. But the rest of us aren't going to make that attack. Since you value the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay (you cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS above), then you should also be aware the same essay includes WP:That's only a guideline/essay, the very argument you are using to discount WP:OUTCOMES. --Oakshade 07:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continue to accuse me of attacking anyone? You seem to be the onlyone attacking others and you the onlyone assuimg bad faith. OUTCOMES isn't even a full essay, it's just the opinions of those who wrote it based on what they think is the consensus of various subjects. People saying "Keep per OUTCOMES" are just saying "Keep because these people think that other similar articles are usually kept". If someone want to present an actual argument for keeping an article, that is something else. Something I have noticed on most of the school articles that get kept only do so because the AFD forced people to clean up the article, most have no claim of notability and are pretty bad when they get nominated. TJ Spyke 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If an article was kept because editors cleaned up and demonstrated that a topic is notable, then that article shouldn't have been nominated for AfD to begin since the nominator didn't properly research the topic (see WP:OSTRICH). If they were too lazy to do so, they should've placed a "clean-up" tag instead. --Oakshade 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That is usually done. Some of those school articles had clean-up tags for MONTHS before being nominated. TJ Spyke 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Article makes specific claims of notability regarding sports championships won by the school, particularly in golf, accompanied with reliable sourcing. Accompanied by the strong consensus on retention of such articles with meaningful content and sources for high schools evidenced by WP:OUTCOMES, and based on the evidence provided, the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Additional sources are available based on searches, and once they are added, I will reconsider my vote. Alansohn 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the practical way to deal with high school articles. "Outcomes" is just as summary of what we usually do here, and almost no high school articles are now currently being deleted, except for copyvio. As for this school, it has won 6 athletic championships, and that is usually considered a sufficient factor in notability. DGG (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Clearly unnotable schoolcruft. Delete. Eusebeus 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I prefer to err on side of being generous in defining "notable" Jacksinterweb 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Claremont Port Side

Claremont Port Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a college newspaper. No reliable sources are provided in the article to establish notability. A notability tag was removed with no addition of information to assert or establish notabilty. Google searches in the web and news turn up no reliable sources to indicate notability. Whpq 13:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to be a small, independent college paper, and the article offers no reliable sources to back up any of its claims - with 26 unique Google hits, I don't think there will be any forthcoming. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All references in the article, except for a blog post which doesn't mention the magazine, are to the Port Side's website or other Claremont Colleges student publications. Not even close to notability. MrVibrating 08:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Of the 7 references, only one is actually to non-trivial coverage in a third-party source [44]. That one is marginal IMO; it covers a single incident, and is in a campus newspaper (not even the local Claremont city newspaper). Of the remaining 6 references, 4 are to its own website, one doesn't mention the publication at all (!), and one mentions it very briefly in passing. --Delirium 08:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Scenery Channel

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

nicely-presented article, but i don't think there's even any assertion of notability in it, let alone demonstration of any. creator and another user have repeatedly removed any tags added. tomasz. 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
See also:

• Tommi Inkilä
• Dark to Light
• Premiere —Preceding unsigned comment added by W guice (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Band is no more notable than 5,000 other bands that can be found on metal-archives.com -RiverHockey 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienTOMogy

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

Anyone can start a website. This one was notable, not for itself, but only because of the Church of Scientology's legal actions against it. There was some press coverage but it was only about the lawsuits, not the site itself. Steve Dufour 12:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The first citation I clicked ([45]) carried an overview of the site and its contents. Besides, the site's involvement is its notability; your argument is like saying that Reginald Denny's article should deleted for not having information on his early life, where he grew up and stuff. This is a notable topic, and it appropriately covers the notable aspects of it. Dylan 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That article said almost nothing about the site. Do you think that anyone would be talking about it if the Church of Scientology hadn't sued? BTW the information about the suits is probably already covered in other WP articles. Steve Dufour 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that anyone would be talking about it if the Church of Scientology hadn't sued? -- who cares what would have happened if things were different? The Church did get involved, and the Church did threaten to sue. I really don't understand what your objection is, if you admit in the nomination that it's a notable website. If it's notable and well-sourced, NPOV, etc. (it is), what's the problem? Dylan 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Church sued them is notable. The site itself is not notable. The car some celebrity was driving when arrested for DUI would not be a suitable subject for a WP article, even if it were mentioned in hundreds of news stories. Steve Dufour 18:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, I see your point now, but I still disagree. There's an obvious difference between the theoretical car you mentioned and this site. This site is the point of that lawsuit, the center of it, the impetus for it, while the car is just incidental to the arrest. In other words, the coverage of the car would definitely be "trivial," but this coverage is not. The coverage of ScienTOMOgy is substantive -- from reading the coverage, you can get a sense for the content of the website, its history, its author, and its point of view. Dylan 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as sufficiently notable per WP:WEB#Criteria. There is an abundance of non-trivial coverage of this subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 15:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Well-sourced, well-referenced and a range of coverage from outside sources; this appears to meet WP:WEB fine. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The first thing mentioned there is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I don't think the content of this site has been the subject of attention, rather its history of being sued -- which was over its domain name. Steve Dufour 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Per the two Keeps from above before I even found out about this AFD on an article that recently passed a review as a WP:GA. This will make for an interesting {{Articlehistory}} box on the talk page... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

I am not saying that the article is not well written, just that its subject is not notable. Steve Dufour 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Reliable sources establish notability, well formatted, in fact I see nothing wrong with it. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Check out this comment from AndroidCat (talk · contribs) Diff to the nominator of this current AFD, regarding an unsuccessful AFD of a Featured Article, the article Xenu, and here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination) (The result was "Speedy Keep.") Just thought that was relevant. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Xenu still does not even attempt to answer basic questions, such as: Does anyone really believe in Xenu? It does give us lots of trivia however. :-) Steve Dufour 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To consistently AFD quality-rated articles, especially an article that has been rated as a WP:Featured Article on the project, seems like WP:POINT and a waste of everyone's time, as AndroidCat (talk · contribs) already complained about. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

I thought that AfD's were about the notability of the subject matter, not the rating WP editors give the articles. Steve Dufour 02:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that most editors would realize that by the time an article like Xenu has been promoted as an Featured Article, "Kept", in its first AFD, and "Kept", in its Featured Article review - that filing AFDs at some point gets to be frivolous and a waste of time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

Still, it should make an attempt to say something about its subject. Steve Dufour 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. If the editors of WP know everything and are never wrong maybe they should be doing something more important with their time and talents, Steve Dufour 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, easily passes WP:WEB, and I would advise the nominator against splitting hairs. There is no WP:WEB1E (websites known only for one thing). Notability can come about for many reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The official website of the Church of Scientology, scientology.org, does not have its own article. Nor do 99.99% of websites. Why should this one? Steve Dufour 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it passes our notability standards. We can keep arguing in circles like this for hours if you're so inclined. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked out WP:WEB#Criteria. To me it does not even come close to meeting the criteria stated there. This was just someone's personal website where he made fun of Tom Cruise. Steve Dufour 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Has been the subject of sufficient media/other coverage. Sfacets 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Steve, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I think you might want to take a hint from the fact that seven other editors have uniformly disagreed with your assessment of this article's notability, all for the same reason. And as Curt Wilhelm VonSavage pointed out above, regardless of what your intentions actually are, continuing to nominate quality-rated articles for deletion smacks very strongly of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dylan 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

An article about this type of website about any other topic but Scientology would have been gone within a week. Maybe next time I will try writing an article instead of deleting one. :-) Steve Dufour 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article subject matter is notable, reliably sourced, and verifiable. Too bad Steve does not like it, but it complies with Wikipedia guidelines and policy.--Fahrenheit451 22:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable. Doczilla 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Is Coming

Jesus Is Coming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We're told that this movie (2002) is a "dark and dramatic comedy". Till recently we were also told that it was a controversial one, though this unsourced claim has recently evaporated. Two external links are given: the site of the movie itself (not a reliable source, of course), and imdb.com. Imdb.com too is hardly a reliable source for a minor movie, but all the same let's look at its entry. It's minimal. The movie gets no rating, as it still awaits five votes. Number of comments: zero. Number of external reviews: zero. This appears to be an English language movie, released in the US; the recency/anglophone/US biases of the web should work in its favor, and it's had five years to pick up buzz. It's a bit hard to google for the title without a huge number of false positives, but since the director and author are both Edward Donato, it seems reasonable to google for the combination of the strings "jesus is coming" and "edward donato". As of a few seconds ago, this brought just 35 hits. NN. (Indeed, its very existence is hardly verifiable.) -- Hoary 12:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is far below WP's standard for notability in films. BTW I thought the article was going to be about the expression "Jesus is coming." That would be notable enough for an article. Steve Dufour 12:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Comment: the image of the ostensible film poster, given its lack of spacing between the lines of text, looks more like something quickly cobbled together on a computer, and intended for use on computer screens. It is difficult to believe anyone would go to the trouble of actually printing this image in poster-sized format so it could be hung in a theater (or any other wall for that matter). Presumably, a notable film (most, anyway) would have gone to more trouble than this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - falls flat on it's face on all five points of notability for films. Jauerback 13:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Jauerback and the unproductive Google News Archive search I did for Donato. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly exaggerated claims were made in the article for this film's notability - with no support. The only potentially notable element of this subject (and I'm really stretching for this) might be the ostensible appearance of Ron Perlman in the film... but I see that he appears as "Himself", and I wonder (assuming the film really exists at all) whether the camera was simply rolling when Mr. Perlman happened to walk by... Pinkville 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per very well-laid-out nomination. Dylan 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• If you go to the movie's website, there's a promo clip, that I must say is quite compelling, that the movie exist. It has a scene with Ron Perlman which is clearly not just a fluke. Also, Ron Perlman has it listed on his imdb and the he is listed on the Jesus Is Coming imdb. The movie was given an MPAA NC-17 rating, for strong sexuall content and violence. A movie called Jesus Is Coming with a NC-17 rating could be considered controversial. (Why would anyone not consider the imbd a good source?) Hollywood people source it all the time. Another thing, this is not the original movie poster. The original poster features a preacher standing on painters stilts, holding a bible and a bull horn. The movie is a mock-documentary, which could explain why Ron Perlman plays himself. There are a few other names besides Ron Perlman, listed in the movie's imdb, which one my consider well known. ThorLG November 4 2007
  • 1. there's a promo clip, that I must say is quite compelling, that the movie exist. Hardly. Where's the evidence that it was released?
    2. A movie called Jesus Is Coming with a NC-17 rating could be considered controversial. For a completed and released film, "controversial" either is a vapid marketing term, or it means that there was or is a controversy. Where's the evidence for a controversy?
    3. Why would anyone not consider the imbd a good source?) Hollywood people source it all the time. For a film that (perhaps unjustifiably) has won very little attention, why suppose that edits are checked and why consider it a good source? -- Hoary 12:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not doubting for a second that the movie exists, and indeed its entry on IMDB is decent evidence of that. However, every two-bit five-second movie ever made can get an entry on IMDB, therefore it does not provide evidence that the movie is any bit notable. Furthermore, the general standard on Wikipedia is for multiple, independent sources to establish verifiability and sadly, they just don't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• The MPAA will not give a movie a rating unless, the picture has a theatrical screening, and slated for release. Even movies slated for DVD release, must be screened in a theatre, before it can be given an MPAA rating. imdb rules, movies 28 min. or less are considered shorts. Which has it's own category. Even the television category has the 28min rule. And, There is a very compelling trailer from Jesus Is Coming. The link is at the bottom of the Jesus Is Coming article, which takes you right to it. Hardly a 2 bit 5 second movie. The trailer itself is over 2 min. ThorLG November 4 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLG (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So it had a theatrical release then. And, we must infer, did so at some time since 2002. Please provide links to reviews, or independent sources that verify its existence and notability. -- Hoary 07:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• I found out that the movie's original site is jesusiscomingthefilm.com, a few things came up on google, but not much. However,I got an email from a source who said they were with Fineline, explaining about the movies release, and they were very upset about S.V. writing a wiki artical. It crossed up their plans... If you're interested I'll make a brief explaination as to what was said in the email. (Funny thing, in that same email there was a mention that Jesus Is Coming is being re-released.) What the heck do I know, I just like E.D.'s work. Perhaps an indirect wiff of promo... as thought...ThorLG November 5 2007
  • — ThorLG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . --A. B. ^(talk) 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lodge of the Order of Enlightened Knights

Lodge of the Order of Enlightened Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A "religious, esoteric, spiritual" organisation. So esoteric that the only evidence the author provides is a link to their website. Possible hoax. Certainly non-notable. (Already speedied at Lorek but I suspect this author may persist so I would like a clear mandate for future deletions.) -- RHaworth 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seems to be an attempt at self-promotion; neither notability nor independent verifiability is apparent from the text given. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hard to tell what this is. Hoax? Fiction? Part of an ARG? One thing for sure is that it isn't backed by reliable sources and doesn't belong on Wikipedia until it is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, absurd article. Not exactly sure myself what this is breaking, but it's some combination of WP:HOAX and WP:N. Merely 5 ghits, all garbage. Doctorfluffy 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Physicalitisation

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

Im not sure it means anything, but I might be wrong. I almost speedied this as nonsense, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't just being dense. — Coren ^(talk) 12:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The AfD tag on the article itself was missing, so I added it. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Very deep thinking, or then again perhaps not. Delete. -- Hoary 12:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is impossible to verify this article from reliable sources. It might be a hoax as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dephysicalitise Has no potential to be any more encyclopaedic than the unverifiable stub it is now. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete incomprehensibilitisation. JJL 23:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There appears to be a close match at physicalisation. Maybe this belongs in Wiktionary.....but not here. -----Adimovk5 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Poor old Wiktionary. What has it done to deserve to be the dumping ground for the waste products of Wikipedia? -- Hoary 06:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is both bollocks and a neologism. Cardamon 17:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless the closing admin can close this AfD without touching the keyboard or mouse, in which case keep as some kind of explanation for such magical mopwielding. -- But|seriously|folks  18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Physicalisation doesn't seem to have anything to do with this. Someguy1221 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Age of Empires III campaign storyline

Age of Empires III campaign storyline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is massively crufty and totally unnecessary. The plot/campaign is summarised well enough in the Age of Empires III article (GA), it's not needed here too. — H₂O —  10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's excessively detailed, in a bad way. Andonic ^{Screw wikibreak enforcer!} 10:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with all above, and this should at best be a small section in the Age of Empires III article Carter | Talk to me 10:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this type of article should be better off in GameFaqs or an AoE wiki. It is also redundant to the article--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I see this having a place, but it would need a complete re-write, rename and it'd probably be easier birthing it from within the AOE III article itself than trying to do it with this, but in its present state, it needs too much work than is worth doing to keep it. --lincalinca 10:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is the wrong website to host this information.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. Unnecessary, especially (as said by nominator) if a summarised version is already available at Age_of_Empires_III#Campaign. ♠TomasBat 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild 08:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Aikido organizations

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

Not necessary and against WP:EL and WP:SAL. I originally created this list to take some pressure off the Aikido and Aikido styles article and the use of external links but I think the situation has changed enough that it is no longer necessary. Most links not found in articles on the major styles have been transfered over so this list basically duplicates information. Its been around a bit so afd is better than a straight up deletion.Peter Rehse 08:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and my comments at talk. Bradford44 13:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe first bury on Talk:Aikido_styles then archive so the info. is available somewhere for reference by future editors. JJL 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#LINK. This is just a collection of external links. WjBscribe 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OmenServe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/OmenServe
• Articles for deletion/OmenServe (2nd nomination)

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

See: Wikipedia:Notability (software). A non-notable IRC script, and only has 660 Ghits which is dismal for internet application. Although the Google test isn't policy, for an internet script something that low indicates non-notability. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• nom del or merge into Internet Relay Chat or MIRC script.--TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) / A7 - does not assert notability for web content; or, CSD / G11 - blatant advertising. --slakr^\ talk / 08:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment. The first AFD mentions Wikipedia:Notability (software), which isn't an actual notability guideline. Moreover, there are literally bajillions of mIRC scripts out there, so merging to mIRC or mIRC script isn't plausible. --slakr^\ talk / 08:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Strangely enough, as a creator of the article, after a longer meditation I support deletion. I created this when I was new to the Wikipedia - this is the very first article I created. And while the script is well-known, it is not covered by Wikipedia notability guidelines - and what has been bothered me for more then a year is that I also violated WP:COI when creating this article. Some of the content could be merged to Serving channel, though, and create the appropriate redirect. Perhaps do a non-admin close of the AfD? -- Sander Säde 08:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete, appears totally nn.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It would need 6 more Google hits to be notable. joking aside, it's not notable Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fulpy

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

Contested PROD related to Footstep (Band). Non-notable neologism. WODUP 07:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete protologism/dicdef. JuJube 07:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism. Jargon for music played by the almost speediable band Footstep (Band). THE KING 09:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above Carter | Talk to me 10:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW for related afd for Footstep (Band) and non-notable neologism. --lincalinca 10:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete So new and non-notable that googling fulpy and footstep together gives no pages found so possibly also fails WP:MADEUP • nancy • 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Hal peridol 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with nukes per nom. Dethme0w 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's jargon that nobody uses and the Footstep page is unanimously 'delete' anyway. Auroranorth (sign) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Doctorfluffy 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable WP:NEOlogism. tomasz. 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Footstep (Band)

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

A contested PROD, this is an article about a non-notable band that asserts notability. WODUP 07:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fulpy is a related AfD. WODUP 09:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete: Wikipedia is funny... i didnt no goats wore coats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.165.244 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Obvious NN band. No hits on google even remotely related to this band. Only links supporting this article are MySpace pages. Username of creator suggests a violation of WP:COI. Andante1980 09:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: User who created this band also changed Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album, which he cites in the article, to falsely list the band as a nominee. (Please see real nominees.) I have reverted the edit. I'm going to go through the contrib history to check on other vandalism. --Sesameball^Talk 09:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that, i also investigated that claim. It's total nonsense. Andante1980 09:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked for the official nominee list and couldn't find it. My hero! The article asserts notability, so it can't be speedy deleted, but this AFD can certainly be snowball closed if an admin sees it that way. WODUP 09:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh right, I forgot about that little detail and the "hoax rule", so consider it a delete vote. But I'm just wondering why he decided to pick on Thom Yorke ;) --Sesameball^Talk 09:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I can't find a speedy criteria that is applicable, but WP:SNOWBALL applies here. THE KING 09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Near as I can tell, it looks like the user is actually a member of this band and thinks for whatever reason that it's heaps more notable than it really is. WP:VANITY, WP:SNOWBALL, WP:OWN and other reasons apply as to why this shouldn't be kept. Even though it's an essay and not a policy, it doesn't comply with WP:BAI #1, if I'm right in assuming this (and that applies even if it's a notable band). --lincalinca 09:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as NN although it should have been speedied per A7. At the time I nominated it for speedy, the false claim of being Grammy nominated had not yet been made, and was apparently made solely to sidestep speedy deletion. It's definitely snowing in Australia. Dethme0w 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Bugger ridiculous claims of Grammy nominations - if it's bollocks, it's bollocks. Speedy delete A7 - utterly and completely non-notable. Ice the album as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nota notable band, WP:VANITY article. Hal peridol 23:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I can confirm that Footstep is definatly a big band here, but I cant find anything about them on the internet
• Dont delete this article raises good contraversy over the issue of small town bands making it big, on top of that I love this band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.165.244 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Struck out two 'votes' by the same user. Also, they were in violation of WP:ILIKEIT. Auroranorth (sign) 06:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the two comments where added by a user who readded some content on the page which was in the original article, suggesting that this particular user is likely a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Andante1980 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Auroranorth (sign) 06:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. There are no reliable sources and this debate's getting close to meatpuppetry. Auroranorth (sign) 06:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per A7. Twenty Years 06:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Don't DeleteAside from the fact that the two previous comments where added by the same user, suggesting that this particular user is likely a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, or possibly even both at the same time, or maybe he is just secretly jealous of the band and wants them removed from the face of the earth all in all. This is indeed turning out to be quite a debate.. What not? I happen to be friends with a freind of the band members, it is indeed real, and is currently a major topic of conversation.
  • Your insistance to strike out a respected editor to suggest that your vote to keep is rather laughable. I would encourage you to join us here on wikipedia as an article editor, but striking out stuff just because you don't like it is not reasonable and childish. --lincalinca 10:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, utterly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dont delete How do you becom an article editor anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.165.244 (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you keep voting multiple times, you and your socks will be blocked. JuJube 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as n-n WP:BAND. User above: anyone who edits an article is considered an editor. tomasz. 00:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete author's bad behavior, questionable edits and feigned ignorance (acting like he doesn't know how to be an editor when he created the articles to begin with) give even more creedence to the fact that this just is not notable. JuJube 04:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

* Don't Delete Hey wait up a second I just wanted to know how to sign up for what you guys do, and this is notable, everyone in the barracks knows about it, Sorry about voting again but i had to clear that, I wont vote anymore :-)

• Delete I'm Australian and I think that I know a bit about music, but I've never heard of this band. The claim that a modern and popular band from a first world country can be notable but somehow not show up on the internet as they "refuse to have any internet articles written on them" is laughable. --Nick Dowling 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

*Dont Delete This band is a major topic in current converstions at school and home, It seems that some people have not heard of them, I would like to Inform you that this band is real However They did not enter the grammy's but play at alot of events such as fundraisiers,parties etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.139 (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• As pointed out by Nick, if they don't want any articles written about them, why would they want an encyclopedia article? Playing at parties, fundraisers, events and such don't make them notable. If that were the case, I'd have my own article on here, since I support my family half by my earnings from playing live music in original composition based bands, but I don't (yet) consider myself notable enough to warrant a page, being why I don't have one here (and if I did, I wouldn't edit it myself for WP:OWN and WP:COI reasons). --lincalinca 08:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(wellmonster)- yea this band is real i'v herd them and they should not be deleted ok! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellmonster (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC) — Wellmonster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Meatpuppets ahoy. JuJube 09:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Delete This band is not confined to the area suggested in previous comment, it is a well toured band travelling far and wide, and is well known throut Australia, and parts of PnG, How could you Not Know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.206.78 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Footsteps rad as! so dont delete them. and if you dont know who they are then you should probably give up on life right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.111.155 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe it's time to wrap this one up? I think we've kinda seen it all, violation of WP:COI, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BAND, WP:SNOW and sock/meatpuppets. While this band probably matters to a small number of people involved in it or their direct peers, it's quite obvious that there's a definite NN flavour to all this.

• Let's not forget WP:BULLSHIT regarding the fraudulent edits by the article's creator to the Grammy nominees page. Were it not for that little stunt we wouldn't be having this special conversation right now. Dethme0w 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeh.. Ill agree on that one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browny3 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's time to wrap this up as the article is decending into even more blatant vandalism/falsehoods. --Nick Dowling 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Song Memories

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

Non notable Saturday Night Live sketch. We don't have articles for routines done twice. William Graham ^talk 06:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Unabrasive, takes pressure off larger article. digitalemotion 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Emotion (talk • contribs)
• Keep but vast improvement needed (references, prose and structure, at a glance). --lincalinca 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Digital Emotion that it does take pressure off of the other article. There are a lot of situations like this one that are necessary to keeping articles concise and informational. Keep it! Expand....but keep. Carter | Talk to me 10:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment... I'm having second thoughts. Maybe it'd be more appropriate to list this into a merged List of minor Saturday Night Live sketches, which could include notable sketches that didn't get off the ground enough for revisiting, but gained broader coverage than just by SNL itself? It's just a thought, because there are several instances in SNL where this happens and the articles are invariably only ever going to achieve stub to start class by themselves, whereas a list of these kind of sketches collected together would potentially reach Featured list status. Just a thought/suggestion. --lincalinca 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For 90% of SNL sketches, in 3 months, you won't even remember them. It's just another symptom of Wikipedia being fixated on pop culture regardless of long term notability.--William Graham ^talk 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Supabarn

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

Lack of reliable sources and appears to contain original research, appears to be NN and is located only in NSW. Taken to AfD after a prod was contested and no explanation was provided after 24 hours. L337 kybldmstr 06:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The original research part of your argument can be contested in very many ways, however only two need be focussed on. firstly, the Supabarn website provides many details with regard to its store. Secondly, having previously worked at Supabarn I know the inner workings of it and hence the outer workings of it and can claim that their are only facts on the page. Tuddy —Preceding comment was added at 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can claim it, but unless you reference it appropriately it would count as original research and be removed. And also, articles should not rely on a single source for its information - which is exactly what is happening. Googling for more won't solve the issue, I already tried. There are simply not enough sources to say anything in that article is correct. L337 kybldmstr 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 12:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pitbull discography

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

Separate article detailing the discography of Pitbull, an artist of questionable notability himself. The article's content is a slightly more detailed version of the discography section of the main article. CSD of this article was removed by article authors twice before being declined by an admin. jonny-mt(t)(c) 06:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete - since it's covered in the main article, I don't see why there should be a separate article for it. L337 kybldmstr 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. Makes sense Carter | Talk to me 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge for now until it overflows within the main Pitbull article. Also, I have recently tagged a list of "collaborative singles" that other artists within that article, but if that ever gets cleaned up, the Pitbull discography will just have to remain within the main article I suppose. --Andrewlp1991 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Bear with me. The arguments for keeping are based the album existing, and actually being a legitimate release. This is based on the following: 1) Lincalinca having seen it in a shop (he later says he may have been mistaken). 2) A blog and a Yahoo! Questions reply (not reliable sources 3) Two Flickr images. The first image is actually from her DVD (Loose Live), and the second image is actually a single cover ("Te Busque"). Nobody has been able to provide a reliable source, and the album is not mentioned on her website. WP:V is non-negotiable. The article can be restored at a later date if reliable sources are forthcoming. I will be only to happy to do so, please contact me via my talk page or email. Neil ☎ 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Hits (Nelly Furtado album)

Greatest Hits (Nelly Furtado album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod tag was removed, rationale was:

This album was never promoted by Nelly Furtado or her label. It is unlikely that a record label would release a greatest hits album after only three prior albums, and in such a limited market. No sources are referenced in this article and it reads more like an advertisement. Unless proof of this album's existence comes to light, it should be deleted, as should references to it on Furtado's biography.

Closedmouth 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the article itself, it was an Australian only release. Plus, I've seen the CD in stores myself. I don't think it's a remarkably notable release, but I think it's work a keep. --lincalinca 07:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If we could make the keeping of obviously notable subjects such as this indisputable, there would be no reason to go through all of this, would there? digitalemotion 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Emotion (talk • contribs)
• Keep Based on Lincalinca's evidence, this is a no-brainer. I wouldn't personally buy the CD but its worth an article. THE KING 07:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What evidence? Bobby1011 12:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Pardon me for assuming good faith. He'd seen the CD in the stores, which means it exists. And if it exists, then it's notable because its a CD by a notable artist. The following link confirms my suspicions - that the CD does indeed exist. [46] THE KING 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per above Carter | Talk to me 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The existence of the album seems confirmable[47], and it is part of a noteworthy performer's discography. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the CD exists, it is not described in any WP:RS - the above two links are a blog entry and a question about its existence at Yahoo Answers. It is not mentioned on Furtado's official website and it's unavailable at chaos.com. Hal peridol 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chaos.com won't list it because it's not an American release. Furtado's website also doesn't list any of her other works that aren't her studio albums, so that's not an exhaustive resource. That said, I wandered into sanity tonight before going to the cinemas, and couldn't find it, but they could have sold out, but to add to that, sanity.com.au and jbhifionline.com.au don't list it either. I'm now unsure. I may have seen anothr album or single by her with the same image on the cover, but a different title (I haven't paid a lot of attention to her since she started to suck). --lincalinca 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The photo for the UK release can be found here - it is described as from the 'Say it Right' photoshoot. The main photo looks like this, but it is not attributed to anyone beyond the uploader. Hal peridol 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It may not exist everywhere. But it exists. And that's been confirmed by several RS. The fact that (not one but) two album covers for it have been found must mean something. It needs a copyedit though. — H₂O —  01:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say that I am still skeptical - neither cover album image used has proper attribution (the main one is labelled as being from the Loose Live DVD, while the second one has an image identical to the "Te Busque" single [48],Warner Music Australasia has no record of it, and the reliable sources consist of a blog and Yahoo Answers (where the answer given is that it is unlikely to exist). Hal peridol 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • [49] is pretty convincing to me. THE KING 04:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Was not able to find a copy for sale anywhere on the internets. If it does in fact exist, it looks to have been released by "Star Mark", a label that appears to license music from other labels, like Pickwick used to in the old days (which would explain the crappy typography in the artwork). Unless it can be shown in a reliable source (and I wouldn't consider a lo-res photo (or hi-res for that matter) reliable), it fails WP:V. Precious Roy 16:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh Monster Cards

Yu-Gi-Oh Monster Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of non-notable trading cards. Fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy 06:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; We must uphold Wikipedia's reputation for high-quality coverage of Japanese collectible card games. Masaruemoto 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I believe well over 1000 unique Yu-Gi-Oh cards have been released to the public; it would be ridiculous to make lists for that many cards. Reads too much like a textbook/guide and I don't see any reason for keeping this article either. L337 kybldmstr 07:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete! MONSUTAA KAADO! we have the Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia, and List of notable Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. JuJube 07:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - article constructed around nothing but nonencyclopedic information. digitalemotion 07:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Emotion (talk • contribs)
• Delete Per JuJube Carter | Talk to me 10:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable cards plus a hoax card. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Occupational Health and Safety and Business Ethics

Occupational Health and Safety and Business Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article appears to express personal opinions rather than present facts. It reads like an editorial and a call for action, not an encyclopedia article. Even a complete rewrite wouldn't fix it because it isn't clear how the purported topic(s?) might constitute the basis of an encyclopedia article in the first place. Rivertorch 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete And it's a horrible essay. Moral myopia and moral muteness? Workers unite, you have nothing to lose but your fingers! Mandsford 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oak Point Intermediate School

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

School is not notable. Cbradshaw 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This school fails to assert notability. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article from third party reliable sources. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article does not assert the importance of the subject and appears non notable. --Stormbay 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sudershan Paul

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

One of many people who filmed the Malibu wildfire and had the clip run on CNN. Fails WP:BIO - coverage of individual is incidental only and no other claim to notability. Euryalus 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. --DAJF 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Members of the public have video run on news channels all the time. This is not notable in any way.Alberon 10:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable and a strong probability of WP:COI as well • nancy • 12:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:BLP1E, not even borderline in terms of that.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. TGreenburgPR 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Skeleton NanoLab

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

Wasn't really sure if this would fall under db-corp, but I also don't see how this could ever be anything but a perpetual stub or an advertisement, so I'm listing it here. - ∅ (∅), 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable as of now, {{prod}} would have been probably enough. -- Sander Säde 06:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete s/Lab/Stub. The 22 unique ghits fail to verify this article. MER-C 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless in the unlikely event of reliable third-party sources appearing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: who knows whether it might become prominent enough to deserve an article, but we don't keep articles in the hope of their subjects eventually becoming notable. Nyttend 05:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Quentin Leah

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

Lacks sources, cannot meet WP:FICT notability guidelines, no real world context can be established Pilotbob 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 600 ghits ("-wikipedia") mainly from fansites and passing mention only in book reviews - not possible to establish notability from reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT. Also this is largely just a WP:NOT#PLOT summary. Doctorfluffy 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Was thinking 'merge', but couldn't find anything in the Shannara series of articles that would be the appropriate place to do so. SkierRMH 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Truls Rohk

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

No real world context, subject lacks real world notability, no primary or secondary sources Pilotbob 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't see any reason that this article would serve as being useful, since it's completely inuniverse, unreferenced and reads like an excerpt from Brooks' work. --lincalinca 10:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia isn't a plot summary. Nyttend 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hadeshorn

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

Fictional lake lacks real world notability. Cannot be sourced with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Pilotbob 04:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources specified, no sufficient real world information. --Oxymoron⁸³ 04:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not come close to satisfying WP:FICT. shoeofdeath 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Plume of Feathers, Loughton

The Plume of Feathers, Loughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pub. Borderline speedy as no assertion of importance. Masaruemoto 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - If anyone thinks that it has any notability, they can recreate it as a serious, non comedy article. digitalemotion 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digital Emotion (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if its biggest claim to fame is that it stayed open until 1am on St Patrick's Day then I think it is safe to say it fails WP:NOTE • nancy • 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If we had articles on every public house, Wikipedia would be hopelessly overloaded and there is nothing to suggest that this is more notable than any other. Article is almost humourous in terms of WP:OR - I mean how we'd ever find a reliable source to verify that "Recently a courageous young barmaid has taken to stealing K-man's woolly hat. This sort of activity tends to be received in great humour by everybody except K-man himself - everybody else really hates that hat - who usually responds by muttering under his breath and miming a rifle to shoot her with. At this point the Friends resume ignoring him: he is done entertaining them for the evening"... --h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Well, it's got "a new and improved condom machine" - doesn't that make it notable? Only joking - delete of course. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A pub much like thousands of other pub. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kekkei genkai

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

This fictionaly concept lacks real world notability. The article is beyond help and cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Pilotbob 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The beyond help claim is beyond ridiculous, as there is almost never no such thing. So too is the claim of no cites to be found. I won't say this is a bad-faith nom, but it shows a decided lack of willingness to read into what is being deleted. Past that bit of rationale battering, keep because these abilities are important plot devices, second to maybe the funny demon plot devices. The Sharingan in particular, enough so that you can get your contacts to look like it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  The sources seem questionable (for example, First Official Data Book) and there is nothing to indicate that this concept has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Pilotbob 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  That's a primary source. Granted, the article does need the <ref> version of citations, but this is a reason to tag, not delete. Second, I'd say 158,000 Google hits for Sharigan establishes notability, at least in that one instance. I'll admit that finding a non-fansite among that mess of crap would be difficult, but it's obviously a notable subject. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Just because we know of it doesn't mean it's notable. Wikipedia has policies on what is notable and what is not, and according to those, this obviously isn't. Primary sources are all that's available. Reliable secondary sources are needed to establish notability. Subdolous 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  "Important plot devices" does not mean notability. Per WP:PLOT, a subject that warrants its own article must pass notability requirements, have real-world relevance, and have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, none of which is the case here. Subdolous 15:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, the problem is that it lacks secondary information. Having an article on Sharingan perhaps isn't a bad idea but a good fiction-related article needs both in-universe and out-of-universe information to warrant a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed on all points made by Soneguy. What the article needed was to be tagged and the editors being told "Get some Refs!" not "This ain't got no Refs, delete!".--TheUltimate3 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - If there's no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then it must be deleted because it is not notable. A work of fiction may be notable while the specific details within it are not. Subdolous 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This Article has references where needed, IMO, and if there needs to be more, somone should find them, this article is significant to the overall plot and should be kept. Chipmonk328 2 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.102.43 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  This comment was actually made by 70.128.102.43 (talk), who has done few or no other edits outside of this afd. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  References may confirm the content, but do not establish notability if they are all primary sources. Notability is defined on Wikipedia as significant coverage of the article subject in reliable secondary sources. That is not the case here. Subdolous 17:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it's really of no use to keep the article if secondary sources don't exist. The Naruto databooks probably aren't reliable sources since they're mainly exclusive to Japan. Any databooks released in the U.S. are scanlations far as I know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Since Naruto and this subject are Japanese, the authoratitive sources will likewise be Japanese. Such as the cited databooks. Colonel Warden 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge There's a huge amount of Naruto-related material and this chunk of content just needs work as part of Wikipedia's coverage of this notable subject. The best sources are in Japanese, I suppose - can't help there. Colonel Warden 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Naruto is notable is irrelevant. The subject of this article is "Kekkei Genkai." That subject is not notable per wikipedia's criteria: Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources, even the "best" ones to which you refer, are primary sources, and cannot be used for establishing notability. Subdolous 19:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be mistaken. The Data Books which are cited seem to be synthetic secondary sources. It's the videos, manga and games which are the primary sources. Other secondary sources include coverage in magazines such as Neo (magazine). Naruto seems to be the most popular anime and so has spawned a vast corpus of secondary material - about 60 million ghits. Asserting that there cannot be adequate sources amonsgt all this seems fanciful. Colonel Warden 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Like Someguy said, the nomination shows a particular unwillingness to read into the deleted material. Also the fact is that the article can be cited with secondary information if people just look for that particular info and include it in the article, but the problem is that most of us are either in school and/or have work to do, so we don't have time. Don't talk about the article as being beyond help, because all the original argument is when you look at it is a cover up of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) User's name has been changed to Sasuke9031 and vote changed, striked out accordingly. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  I love Naruto as much as any fan, but that doesn't make a specific concept within the Naruto universe notbale by wikipedia standards. I don't think you understand the criteria of notability. The criteria is that the subject must have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what's meant by "secondary sources". Just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument, a thinly-veiled coverup of WP:ILIKEIT such as your post is just as vacuous. Subdolous 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well subdolous, you are entitled to your own opinion, but this article was nominated as part of a deletion spree made by User:Pilotbob This user refuses to fix the articles. Maybe this article is not really notable, but instead of tagging for a deletion as part of a deletion spree, shouldn't we work to actually FIX the article? Keep on new evidence of deletion spree and User:Pilotbob's continued bad faith. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  None of what you said is relevant to the notability of the subject at hand. A lack of notability can't be "fixed." Also, PilotBob has not shown any particular bias towards this particular subject in relation to his other deletion opinions. Deletion, if done according to wikipedia's policies, is an improvement on the quality of wikipedia, which is certainly the case here. I also think that, given your username and blatant disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines, that you are too emotionally invested in the subject of the article to make a fair assessment. Subdolous 21:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I have been accused of bad faith and my user space has been vandalized due to this AFD. However, I feel that I am doing the right thing. I don't feel that this article can pass the standards set forth in Wikipedia policy so it does not belong here. I fail to see how this is bad faith. Pilotbob 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Pilotbob, are you sure that this and this was a response to this afd? Would everyone here support the creation of a Sharingan/Byakugan article? Those links that Someguy provided are good OOU information just for that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure Sharingan/Byakugan would pass WP:N either. A website selling sharingan contacts can hardly be considered a reliable source. Subdolous 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Subdolous, I am being led to believe that you are a meatpuppet for Pilotbob and thus yoor opinion has no weight on this discussion. Besides, I believe that we have more keeps than delete's anyway so why are you getting so worked up about this subject? ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Don't go throwing accusations, now, Itachi. Just because pretty much the only thing this user has done is vote in AfDs, doesn't mean he's a meatpuppet. It's similar tastes at best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not affiliated with pilotbob in any way, shape or form. I'm sure our editing histories will show this. You (ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin), on the other hand, have significant bias that is obvious in your choice of username, and self-admitted in your user page. Also, these discussions are not votes. If the arguments presented by the "Keeps" are invalid, which they are, as I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, then they would not and should not be counted. Subdolous 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  CommentTo be fair, I don't think Someguy (and by extenion, me) should be lumped into the "Keep arguments aren't valid." Someguy actually had good points.--TheUltimate3 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  He has his opinions of what's valid and so do we. Best not to turn this into a slugging match over it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  I hope you can say that with a straight face after reading my userpage AGAIN and seeing my entry on WP:CHU. More to the point, my argument was more of a support to Someguy and TheUltimate3 than anything YOU claim it to be. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I can say it with a straight face because we can see the history of your userpage, and your new name still implies a view on this subject that is hardly neutral. The most important thing is still the fact that this subject is not notable per wikipedia's policies because it has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't see anything on this page that dispute that fact, and that unfortunately is the criteria for notability; if it fails that criteria, then it should be deleted. As I said I love Naruto a lot myself, but policy is policy. Subdolous 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Though I hate to point out the obvious, you should read before making blanket statements like that.

  WP:N: This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

  It is not policy, it is a guideline. Likewise, this is one of those situations where common sense comes into play. This is a topic that was split at some point to accommodate information that is important to the understanding of the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  It hardly means it is to be ignored, either. Common sense also doesn't mean "if I like it it should stay" (and I do like Naruto). Furthermore, if this subject is crucial to understanding the series (with which I disagree, being a Naruto fan myself), then you're really arguing for "merge", right? Subdolous 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  It also doesn't mean it should be used as a hammer. I'm not saying merge, because it's a separate topic which cannot be feasibly fit onto another page. I'll admit that some of it could be merged. In fact, I'd go so far to say that a "Sharingan" article would be a better tact altogether. However, the larger entires are redundant amongst several characters, and an integral part of understanding those characters. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I don't know about that. That fails WP:PLOT, which is in fact policy.Subdolous 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  "Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted." Similar concept here. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  This does not fail WP:PLOT mainly because it is not a plot summary, but a summary of abilities. If I were to say that I could fly, that would be a statement pertaining to my ability, not my life story. DISCLAIMER: ITACHIUCHIHAARTICLEFORTHEWIN IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FLY WITHOUT AN AIRPLANE!!! ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes it is, because it's an element of the plot. It's not real (Sorry). Someguy0830's entire argument for the majority of this AFD has been that it's crucial to understanding of the plot ("important plot device" according to him), which means it must pass WP:PLOT, and it fails. "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context" according to WP:PLOT. Naruto may have real-world context, but Kekkei Genkais do not. Subdolous 01:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  What I don't get is why we're so worked up about this. If it fails to meet WP:PLOT, then we just have to find a way to make it pass. And don't give me any of this stuff about things that are impossible. Does finding notable evidence for kekkei genkais defy the laws of physics? No. Therefore we can fix this article to make it notable if we work hard enough. It's not like we are trying to reverse time or something. It doesnt kate rocket science to do this. All it takes is for us to agree to keep the article, and then do something to improve it according to WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Cool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasuke9031 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well, as mentioned before, unfortunately notability and real-world context can't be "fixed", at least not from Wikipedia. If you can get reliable secondary sources to cover Kekkei Genkai, maybe get the New York Times to run an investigative piece called "Kekkei Genkai: The New Wave of Ficticious Superhuman Ninja Abilities from Japan" or something similar, it would pass both. Until you succeed in that endeavor, though, it's still at the same faliure status with respect to the policy and guideline mentioned before: WP:N and WP:PLOT. Subdolous 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  And as I said before don't give me that. You seem to be under the impression that fixing the article to try to make it more notable by going to google and actually LOOKING for notable information on kekkei genkai defies the laws of physics as we know it. It doesn't. There's got to be something in the 50,100 results on google that isn't just fancruft. Currently I am scouring google looking for said sources to add to the article. I'll stay up all night if I have to. I just want to help wikipedia by saving the article, just as was done to the Akatsuki page before. It worked there, so by gosh it will work here. If we delete this page, we will essentially be doing to WP what Hidan did to Asuma. We will delete one page for ourselves that will have repercussions throuout WP. Sasuke9031 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Another point to bring up is that I was going over the article ant somewhere along the line I came up with some template about this article being B-class on the assessment scale. Now what that means in accordance to this discussion, to be honest, I have no clue, but I thought it was worth mentioning. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  A perfectly-written article on a non-notable subject is still subject to deletion. Subdolous 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you. You see folks, he can be reasonable. But please refrain from accusations and simply help us improve the article instead of cluttering up wikipedia to the point where it's unreadable. ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh and my propeosd new name is for ease of access, seeing as how it's my standard username on sites like YouTube, fanfiction.net, etc... ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I would also like to point out, that at this moment, there are no secondary sources because we simply haven't looked for said sources. Saying it doesn't because we haven't looked(or at least what you are implying, the subject simply doesn't have any) isn't at all helping. Another thing I want to point is to not say anyone is bais. Cause us in the Keep Camp could say you are bais against Naruto, but thats all Bad Faith.--TheUltimate3 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Regardless of how notable this may be in-universe, there are still no reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ok fine. there isn't much more than fancruft results and going through google is tedious. I guess i'll hae to find my info somewhere else, so I'm switching form keep to delete on guidlines that there is no notable sources. Besides, there's always the Narutopedia, which has individual articles on dojutsu, (maybe excepting Rin'negan.) Sasuke9031 05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oh and thanks to Someguy for striking out my changed vote. Someguy how do you do that? Sasuke9031 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  <s>Like so.</s> — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. Sasuke9031 05:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment An idea I have, that its just an opinion and nobody have to agree is adding the important parts of the kekkei genkai to recurring jutsu, for example we mat combine byakugan with gentle fist, this is just an idea. Tintor2 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know how that would help satisfy WP:FICT and WP:PLOT, but if you send me your reasoning on my talk page and I agree with you then by all means, be bold. Sasuke9031 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Not in the middle of an AfD. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  OK, then. We wait to the end of the AfD. Sasuke9031 16:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  Probably a moot point by then. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 16:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but my friend. You forget MS Word. It's very easy to save the article, then when it gets deleted, simply take the irrelevant stuff out, and put it in the Jutsu section. Ah, how I love PC's. Sasuke9031 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Already archived. Got a the complete most recent one as a Subpage, to be used if the main article gets deleted, and the Naruto Wiki HAD one from way back. Diced it up good though...--TheUltimate3 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved then. Now all we need to do is wait for an admin to delete the article and TheUltimate3 can do whatever he needs to do. Good job man. Sasuke9031 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though I don't WANT to do anything, I think the article should stay, so we don't have to clutter whereever else these things would be forced to go.--TheUltimate3 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you will read up, you will see that I had the same position. The thing is that even though I tried to find a way to save the article, there was just way too many fan sites on google to sort out and they only give you 20 results at a time. I still want the article to stay but the fact of the matter is that time is against us and even IF we were to find something in the myriad of results on google that is notable, there is no guarantee that this article will remain long enough to see the information added, so I think that we can't fight the inevitable. I've also been accused of being a sockpuppet because I was bold enough to respond to this discussion on the nominator's talk page, so forgive me for wanting to see this resolved as peacefully as possible, but I'm tired of the slander directed at me by people. Sasuke9031 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. time is definently againts us and that sucks. I THINK, it may be possible to remake the article when we actually find some reliable sources...--TheUltimate3 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not a notable concept with no secondary sources. Fails WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a reader it was nice to find Wikipedia giving me some info on the subject. FWIW, I am not used to classify my online activities into notable and non-notable. --Argav ۞ 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Argav, it seems that you are missing the point here. I don't want to see the article go any more than you do, but we can't just overlook the fact that non-notable information has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a jumble of useless information. There are other places for that. Have you ever tried Narutopedia? I recommend that wiki if you want more in-depth knowledge of Naruto. Sasuke9031 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks sources to provide real world context or establish notability. Jay32183 00:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The very large number of ghits indicates it gets talked about a lot (and so is notable in the non-technical sense), which means it is likely that reliable secondary sources likely exist (to establish that it's notable in the technical sense). Tag it for cleanup and give the editors who know the subject the chance to find the references FIRST, then bring it back for AfD after a suitable time. (As an aside, the number of ghits suggests that there are those who don't come across the term and would want to be able to look it up, but WP:USEFUL is a depreciated argument.) —Quasirandom 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A large number of ghits is actually meaningless, especially when not one of those reveals reliable secondary sources. "I found lots of unreliable sources so there must be reliable sources somewhere" is not a sound argument. There's no connection between the existence of reliable sources and the existence of unreliable sources. Jay32183 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not completely meaningless -- it means there is interest in the subject and a decent chance of reliable secondary sources that can estabilish notability. Someone needs the chance to sift through possible sources for reliability. Tag it for cleanup to give the editors that chance. If they fail, THEN delete. Per WP:FICT, delete is the last resort option. —Quasirandom 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. We actually need the sources, we can't just assume they exist. Until you actually find a source, your argument that the article can be sourced beyond plot does not mean anything. Clean up tags are neither magical nor time sensitive. Adding a clean up tag doesn't guarantee there will be improvement and should only be used when the problems only require effort to fix. No amount of effort will make unreliable sources reliable, no matter how many people are interested in the subject. Please read WP:INTERESTING and WP:GHITS. Jay32183 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no evidence of notability to justify this plot summary. --Gavin Collins 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment How is this Entire article a plot summary? After looking the article over, the only area with unneccesary plot is the Mokuton section.Lastbetrayal 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The entire article is plot summary in that all of the information is taken directly from the story. There's no real world information from reliable sources other than the manga and the anime. Jay32183 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge: These come under Jutsu (Naruto). Just merge it there. σмgнgσмg 11:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete at this time. The page has been improved during the course of the AfD and may be salvageable or the content may be appropriate for a merger somewhere. I don't see any consensus for a particular action below and believe that taking some time before a renomination may make the best solution more clear. Eluchil404 00:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental philosophers

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

List with no explanation as to what an enviornmental philosopher is (Goethe?), how a person would be on this list, nor why there would be so many redlinks. Corvus cornix 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and categorise. I sort of have an idea of what environmental philosophy is, because I learned about it in a university class once. Still, works much better as a category than a list.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, weakly. This is naught but a list of names, and the environmental philosophy article is pretty weak also. I understand why it might be thought to work better as a category. It would be helpful if a couple words could be added to each name, explaining the significance of their work in environmental philosophy. But there is no deadline, and the list might be improved. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for someone wanting to find out about environmental philosophers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.26.15 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--I do not know how to contribute to this discussion (here?), but I was the originator of the page, and I have now a) added a definition--the same one that I am using in my forthcoming Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy (MacMillan, 2008). I have also sent a message out to our professional listserve, called ISEE, inviting additional modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodeman (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that you should start by writing an article on Environmental philosophy. Corvus cornix 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this list could be extremely useful, especially to college students taking their first or only course in environmental philosophy. As it is, though, it is inadequate. It would help to link to the page explaining environmental philosophy as soon as the list is introduced. That won't be enough, though, because the environmental philosophy article is poor, and doesn't even talk much about the work done by the listed philosophers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.232.30.80 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment was mine--Rob Loftis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Loftis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason there are so many redlinks is that most of the people listed are college professors whose work has not been deemed important enough to get their own wikipedia page. This raises an important question: how important an environmental philosopher do you have to be to make this list? Will any philosophy Ph.D. who works on environmental issues count? I have a philosophy Ph.D., work in environmental ethics, and teach at a community college. Should I add my own name? --Rob Loftis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Loftis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • See WP:BIO and WP:PROF. There should only be articles about people who meet Wikipedia's notability standards. And if they don't there shouldn't be a redlink for them. But my biggest objection is that there is no explanation as to what an environmental philosopher is, and what makes them notable enough for this list. What are your criteria for this list? Corvus cornix 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Frodeman appears to be working on improving the page, and I think he/she should be given the chance to do so. I agree that you should work on improving the article environmental philosophy, and put more content into your list. If you're new to this AfD is the fastest way to learn the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia. Lists of names, by themselves, are frowned upon; the phrase "indiscriminate information" is used to describe something that is no more than a group of things that are asserted to have something in common. If we simply want links to click upon to find out more, we group them in categories.

See if you can, briefly, describe what Dr. Bookchin or Dr. Callicot have contributed to philosophy, if you want this to be more than a grocery list. It's a worthy topic. (by the way, the "~" sign in the upper left corner of your keyboard is how you sign your comment... type " ~ " four times Mandsford 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A list of names doesn't make for a true encyclopedia article. I think the content of this article should go into environmental philosophy. It certainly seems that environmental philosophy needs some more content, so deleting this article while moving its content to environmental philosophy would be a double-improvement for Wikipedia. Naturally, the information in the list would have to be properly referenced even after the move.-- Mumia-w-18 16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the environmental philosophy page should be collapsed into the environmental ethics page. Robert Frodeman

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Satsifies WP:BIO since he won an award plus no other votes to delete aside from nominator. --Polaron | Talk 17:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Gib Shanley

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

Fails WP:BIO, local notability only, if that much Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notability--Zingostar 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• keep clearly notable on many levels Jacksinterweb 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts, which is a more appropriate target. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lydia (Danny Phantom)

Lydia (Danny Phantom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is clearly an unnotable subject. Lacks a real world context and cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources. Pilotbob 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Danny Phantom. JJL 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge applicable parts to Danny Phantom as minor character. SkierRMH 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. --Polaron | Talk 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lunch Lady Ghost

Lunch Lady Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable fictional character, no primary or secondary sources Pilotbob 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (merge)--no independent notability. JJL 23:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge applicable parts to Danny Phantom as minor character. SkierRMH 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitko marching pride

Whitko marching pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is on a non-notable single school band. Has no assertion of notability in independent sources, and appears to only promote the band. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Normally I would say merge to the school article, but there is no school article. Corvus cornix 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, imho speedily under a7, non notable band.--Oxymoron⁸³ 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; No assertion of importance. It only gets half a dozen Ghits, I've tagged it as A7. Masaruemoto 05:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc

Nintendo GameCube Preview Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It wasn't the full month I stated, but it's also been 21 days without a single edit since it was delisted. None of the problems have been fixed, and no one who voted keep even implied interest in improving the article. Will this change? Doubt it. A Link to the Past (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, though there was no vested interest shown in its improvement, evidence suggests from the previous afd that people showed an interest in wanting it kept. Obviously not enough interest to improve it as yet, but by the same token, there's not supposed to be a deadline on getting things up to scratch (i.e. we don't know what's going on in the lives of those who voted for it to be kept and promised its improvement last time). Non-notable and unverified (and especially unverifiable) elements of an article ought to be removed, but I don't believe deletion is the way to resolve this issue. --lincalinca 10:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There's been SUGGESTION of notability, and as someone who researches sales figures, you can't just "find" the sales figures for the demo disc. No one cares to find this evidence, and I've seen no evidence that they could if they even tried. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I was a subscriber to EGM in 2003 and they would (and still do) print the Top 20 selling games every month (using data from NPD, the official sales tracking group for Canada and the United States). I will search through my collection and find the one for May 2003. I also have the exact sales numbers, but those came from a source that leaked the numbers (somebody who had access to NPD reports and got in trouble since he would make available at NeoGAF) and thus probably couldn't be used since reliable sites like IGN and GameSpot don't want to risk getting cut off by the NPD Group for posting leaked numbers (NPD charges thousand of dollars for these reports, so they don't want any numbers leaked and why NPD released some general numbers for the top 10). TJ Spyke 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • EGM stopped posting sales figures at a certain point, if I recall correctly. Additionally, they do count certain bundles among their sales, so we cannot say that those sales came from general interest - it's merely speculation. One source on the fact that it sold because of bundling is definitely not enough. Did it last past the ad campaign? No. It took a nose-dive almost immediately. The only thing that differentiates it from other demo discs is because GameCube demo discs were rare, and because Nintendo pushed it through the GameCube. Would a game be more notable if it was the only game released on a system? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it is cited from IGN and appears accurate.--Cartman005 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If being acknowledged by IGN means you're notable, a lot of things that aren't are now notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: a link to the past, if you're going to argue your point at every suggestion to keep this article, you're not helping the flow of discussion. --lincalinca 07:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into GameCube. If it's the only demo disc ever released by Nintendo it's probably worthy of a mention there, but it's such a short article that there doesn't seem much point in it existing seperately, and there's a lack of sources proving notability anyway. Miremare 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Gamecube. Same reason as above. 1yodsyo1 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was transwiki. Well it's already there, at [50]. W.marsh 20:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Airman's Creed

Airman's Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and unnotable poem. Brewcrewer 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornix 04:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• ?also merge to United States Air Force. --Brewcrewer 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out that there is an article "The U.S. Air Force (song)." That article, however, is more fleshed out and sourced. --Brewcrewer 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge content to United States Air Force if deemed valuable. JJL 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't merge text matter into articles. That's what Wikisource is for. Link from the article to the page in Wikisource. Corvus cornix 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So what's with The U.S. Air Force (song)? --Brewcrewer 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an article about the song, just like We Didn't Start the Fire and American Pie are. Corvus cornix 21:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is NOT "Off we go into the wild blue yonder", nor is it the poem High Flight It's something new (April 2007) introduced by the U.S. Air Force for its incoming Airmen. The article indicates that there's more to it than a one-time appearance in the AFNews. I don't know whether it's required to be memorized, recited, tested, whatever, but it's part of the service culture. Google search indicates that it's neither "unsourced" nor "unnotable" contrary to nominator's one-liner. Mandsford 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. There's not much that can be said about it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki - perfect candidate for this! SkierRMH 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Charmed ancestors

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

Rediculously in-universe tone, zero third party references, etc. The only hint at there being any third party sources available for any of it are the hearsay in the citations. Nothing outside of those notes is written in an out-of-universe perspective, and it is extremely unlikely that third party sources for the general topic can be found. Note that transwikification to the Charmed Wikia would be fine, as well, if there's anything here that they missed - no reason to lose the data, it just doesn't fit in in an encyclopedia. MrZaius^talk 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FICT. Clearly no reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 05:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this list is not human and does not need to be loved like everybody else does. JuJube 07:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is more like unappreciated back story and is not useful Good-Ash 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.195.65 (talk)
• Comment Please keep in mind that, when closing, a GFDL-licensed Wikia exists where this could be put to use, if not already duplicated. MrZaius^talk 15:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF.Ridernyc 00:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

Summary of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As an encyclopedia any article surely should be a summary of its topic - this article seems completely redundant to 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities. Note that that other article, while controversial and on arbcom parole, is more extensively linked to including on navigation templates for this rather fractured topic, while the "summary of..." article is virtually orphaned when you check what links to it. Much of the content of this "summary" page seems to be along the same lines as Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities which has been deleted (see AFD) for just just being a series of links to news sites, violating WP:NOT. In summary, it's an article at a daft title, which is redundant to one at a better title, almost completely unlinked to, and should probably be merged with the better-titled article except for the fact there's not much salvageable content (it's almost completely uncited and the biggest section is a timeline violating WP:NOT and similar in format to one already deleted)...so AFD seemed the most appropriate place. TheGrappler 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Duplication of an article essentially, for a summary. No reason to have this. It's also mostly uncited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Entirely superfluous, the article it's a precis of is bad enough in itself. Nick mallory 06:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I concur with what other editors have said. It's very obviously superfluous because we already have 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities. THE KING 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think this may constitute a WP:POVFORK. The place for an article summary is the lead section, not a separate article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ugh. --AliceJMarkham 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Iceman - the story of Otzi

Iceman - the story of Otzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, just an exhibit of Ötzi the Iceman. Neutrality^talk 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I just can't see why this particular exhibit is notable. Pigman^what?/trail 02:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 03:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Notability not asserted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn. - Longhair\^talk 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Ötzi the Iceman. Could be integrated into a section called 'exhibitions' or the like. Auroranorth (sign) 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously not notable, and no sources given to contradict this. I don't think that there is any useful information in this article to create a new section on Ötzi the Iceman, unless a lot of other museums worldwide decided to have an exhibition on Ötzi, but even then, a lot of historical things recovered from ice have exhibitions on them and yet no mention of an exhibition in the article... the other day there was another AfD about a computer museum. Should we merge the information on that now deleted article into the article about computers? Or History of computers? No, I don't think so. ~ Sebi 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per: above, non-notable and nominator. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see where this was copied to the List of DirecTV channels article directly, if there is a diff let me know and I'll do a history merge. W.marsh 19:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of DirecTV channels 1000-9999

List of DirecTV channels 1000-9999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list; already appears in List of DirecTV channels Mhking 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redundant and I can't see a good reason why it needs to be broken out of the main article. Pigman^what?/trail 02:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, redundant. Though it does pass WP:NOT#DIR. Tiptoety 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need to list it twice. Doctorfluffy 06:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge edit history to {{List of DirecTV channels/1000-9999}}, the section of List of DirecTV channels which appears to have been derived from this list, for GFDL compliance. DHowell 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant, w/merge per DHowell. SkierRMH 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Ley

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

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 02:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Weak with Ghits . --Brewcrewer 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tentative Delete - may not even be the most notable figure with that name (non-trivial secondary sources on the internet seem hard to come by, though this article is not a hoax). I couldn't find what books he's written, they've certainly not reached amazon so he's probably not notable for as a writer of a major book; as an associate professor he doesn't seem to be especially notable within his domain either. The article as it stands doesn't make a sufficiently strong case for his notability and I can find no evidence outside this article for it either. I'll stand corrected if anyone can point out a major book he's written or can explain that he is remarkable within his field e.g. for advancing a new theory. Until then, I think this is better deleted. TheGrappler 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but...: Non-notable as it stands currently. Expand upon his works and assert notability and importance, and you can withdraw my deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of DirecTV interactive channels

List of DirecTV interactive channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list; already included in List of DirecTV channels Mhking 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I was prepared to lobby a weak keep, since "interactive channels" would seem to be different than regular televison. I was wrong. If this is an ad for DirecTV, it's not very persuasive. Mandsford 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as promotional Ohconfucius 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as TV Guide and redundant with article cited above.SkierRMH 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Db-test tagged at author's request, non-admin closure. Acroterion _(talk) 03:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copybull

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

Apparent neologism, or just editorializing via OR. Two Google hits, neither relevant. Acroterion _(talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment The author contacted me and stated that it was a test page, asking that it be deleted as such; I've tagged it for db-test. Acroterion _(talk) 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't appear to be anything here. Agree with nom. Pigman^what?/trail 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone can credibly verify the term, feel free to create a redirect. W.marsh 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Puerqueño

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

This challenged WP:PROD seems to be a WP:Neologism. Google gets 11 distinct hits, several of which refer to the article. Sourcing added does not conform to guidelines. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Can't find many reliable sources for this term, outside of some vague descriptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and possibly merge content to cuy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:RS. Additional data on the notability of the term might be helpful, but a merge to cuy does not seem unreasonable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to cuy with specific mention of this use (in addition to the other guinea pig references).SkierRMH 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just as a general question, can anybody supply any evidence that this term exists in the context described? I can well imagine that a roadside delicacy might be rare, so Google is not the final word, but it seems like there might be more than seems to be out there. Given that the article was created by a SPA with the username of Kpuerqueno, I am a bit curious. (The PROD was also challenged by a SPA. And I note with some interest that the second source the PROD contester offered within the article—neither of which are reliable—leads to a blog maintained by "Kelsey (and Aaron) Dos Puerqueños" Given the name of the article's creator, it does make you wonder.) If we're going to merge it, I think we need some sort of verification. It may be out there, but I haven't been able to find it. Of the now 13 distinct hits that I find through google, these five are the only ones that don't refer back to this article: this bulletin board, which seems to refer to a sporting event; this bulletin board, which seems to as well; same with this one; this bulletin board uses the term in recounting a newspaper article about a sporting event; this one may be about food, although it's fairly incomprehensible to me. Trying the term without the accent only brings back 4 hits, all of which refer to Wikipedia. My Spanish is nowhere near good enough to validate what those bulletin boards are saying, but they don't seem to me to offer any support for this usage of the term. SkierRMH, evidently you speak Spanish. Can you make sense of them? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pit and Pendulum (public house)

The Pit and Pendulum (public house) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pub. Borderline speedy as there's no assertion of importance here. Masaruemoto 01:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No assertion of notability. Will withdraw if it can be improved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I work there and I am struggling to come up with even the vaguest reason it should have an article. Jdcooper 08:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fatal/Fake

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Fatal/Fake

Fatal/Fake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I like Fate/Stay Night and would really enjoy playing this game. However, as this article stands it is simply a game guide. Looking at the talk page, I found that someone else wanted to delete this almost a year ago. Anyways, Google search did not give any reliable independent review from Gamespot, IGN etc. The game is mentioned in downloads or forums though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems to be a non-notable minor game. Can't find any reviews either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Articles die if they are deleted. JuJube 07:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite: deleting articles doesn't solve anything. Think about rewrite. Well, its much harder, than just huff something, but thats the way. We can't rely on that some computer magazines and stuff has or hasn't a review of a game. I know, that ,,no original research", but editor written reviews, with a neutral viewpoint is also a good solution, well, the writers of magazines do the same, don't they? --Drhlajos 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If no reliable source feels that it's worth writing about the subject, then for our purposes, the subject is not worth writing about. We don't get to write our own material here. No original research is a wikipedia policy not just a phrase. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Even if I fix this article and make it a beautiful prose, it will still get deleted. The main problem here is notability not just poor writing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I think, that the official website could be a reference, for some basic information, in case, that someone would like get basic infomation about the game (such as what is it, system requiments, or even playable characters). Well, it would really reduce the page, but it would contain verifiable information, with trustable references, and containing no original research. The website is japanese, but I hope, we have a japanese-speaking Wikipedian, who can help. What do you think?(rem: no, I won't give up)
    • Reply. Hmmm... the official website only gives specs, FAQs and Download info. I'm ok if you or your Japanese-speaking friend can find independent (meaning the official website doesn't count) sources. However, this will not mean that the article will be saved as those independent sources must be scrutinized first by the community.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Public Houses in Worcester

Public Houses in Worcester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, and also WP:NOT#DIR. All of the other pub lists have recently been deleted. Masaruemoto 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Not a travel guide or directory. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 09:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One big collection of non-notable subjects just means more non-notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW, you pick. NawlinWiki 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fennisball

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

It is completely unsourced, a lot of it seems like original research. Also the article does not assert its importnace or significance but cannot be speedy deleted as it is not about a person,club,group or web content. AngelOfSadness talk 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Information can be merged as an editorial decision. W.marsh 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mrinalini Mata

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

Non-notable person outside her organization. Sfacets 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, one isn't automatically notable by being the vice-president of a religious organisation. Nyttend 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above (NN), - Rjd0060 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Koryu Obihiro 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep She is one of the longest vice-president to serve in this organization and surely that is notable in itself. She is also responsible for the spiritual direction of the Self-Realization Fellowship monastic communities. Moreover, more than 150 of Paramahansa Yogananda's talks have been published under her direction, including two anthologies, as well as several volumes of his poetry and inspirational writings. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any sourcable content to her organisation's page then redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 19:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per HisSpaceResearch up in to Self-Realization Fellowship (which does not mention Mrinalini at the moment) • nancy • 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brint

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

Non-notable expression and no independent, reliable sources have been provided asserting either its existence or its notability. Was originally PRODded with the rationale "Neologism -- neither merriam-webster nor Britannica know it". I have removed the PROD and taken it to AfD to allow more discussion. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing found on searches of several Google properties. --Dhartung | Talk 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto, no reference can be found in any context. WP:RS MatthewYeager 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliables. Twenty Years 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. No reliable sources or really much of anything else on this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources around to prove its existence, or its notability. ~ Sebi 06:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 08:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until reliable sources can be found, then transwiki to Wiktionary. Dictionary listings don't belong here (see WP:NOT). Auroranorth (sign) 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources provided. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitification

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

Neologism, unreferenced word. wikipedia is not dictionary anyways.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge - WP:NOT/DIC /Merge with Racial whitening, very little references found. [51], sounds like a urban dictionary term. looks like it contains WP:OR. Tiptoety 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Not is not a dictionary. Merge with Wikitionary if not already existing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Racial whitening, no real content. THE KING 07:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete rather than perpetuate a neologism as a redir. Was going to go with redirect to Racial whitening but it appears to be a neologism that isn't a common mis-spelling. --AliceJMarkham 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is a Secret ^account 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

International Hockey League (2009)

International Hockey League (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Best case scenario this is a duplicate of International Hockey League (2007-). Worse case scenario its a hoax. Even if it were a true rumour it would fail WP:CRYSTAL. Djsasso 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Djsasso 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DMighton 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "Most people in the hockey community do not see this league happening and believe it to be purely from the imagination of an over zealous Toledo hockey fan." Resolute 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a source is provided. -- JamesTeterenko 04:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacking any citation. Very speculatory. Flibirigit 06:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• 5 Minutes for Roughing per nom. If the league happens, awesome - sources will be available on which to base an article. Until then, Delete. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Either WP:HOAXery or WP:CRYSTALballery. Doctorfluffy 17:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:Crystal. Also unsourced. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Indefinite Suspension User:Gjn26 started this with an edit on November 1 to the Toledo Storm page, then (surprise, surprise) created this article about an hour later. Hey, have you heard a rumor about an NFL team moving to Los Angeles? If you haven't, make one up. Mandsford 23:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair User:96.230.30.24 was the one who added it to the Toledo Storm page. He just removed someone elses comment saying it was a false rumour. That being said I suppose him and the IP could be the same person. I am not an admin so I would have no way of knowing. --Djsasso 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Considering the 2007 version of the IHL is going to award the Turner Cup to it's champion, the Indiana Ice already exist as a junior hockey league team, and the Grand Rapids Griffins and Rockford IceHogs are already in the AHL, this has to be a hoax. Patken4 13:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rumor or hoax, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is a snowball. Nobody wants to keep this. Mandsford 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Request WP:SNOW. Please close debate. Flibirigit 18:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Qst 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DJ Devious

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

• no sources and very little, if any, claim to notability per WP:BAND; also major WP:COI. creator and random IPs seem on an aggressive campaign to remove any kind of tag put on the article. tomasz. 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• He claims to have appeared on this album, but that track list doesn't show him on it, and Shekinah was an all-female album, so I'm not sure how he could have been on that one. Delete. humblefool® 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Despite possibly incorrect info, the subject is somewhat notable. A Google search gives back 18,000+ hits, including this, this, and this, among others. If we trim the spammy bits out, this could be a decent article. GlassCobra 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Glass Cobra. He is listed on the credits of both compilation albums at AMG, here and here, though he is not a headliner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but move to David Charles Kramer (redir should be on the AKA not the actual name) and list on the schools alumni (let them have their say if there is a hoax going on). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn ^anemone|_projectors 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wank Week

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

The article is about a series of television programmes that were never broadcast due to their controversial nature. Yes, there are references, but WP:NOT#NEWS and it seems as though this has been postponed indefinitely or cancelled. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Channel 4 Will ^(talk) 19:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge as this would not be relevant enough for inclusion in an article about the whole TV channel. That's the reason why we don't mention Borat in the Kazakhstan article. Actually, I'm beginning to wish I'd never nominated this as I do kind of see it as notable, but I just want to get opinions.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• comment - then why not withdraw your nomination? This isn't for the most part, a place to get opinions on something unless you already have a negative (i.e., !vote of delete) opinion about an article. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• In case the nominator doesn't get around to withdrawing the nom, Keep. Sourced and informative article. THE KING 09:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, multiple secondary sources cover this and there's no obvious merge target. The web of links would be improved if Masturbate-a-thon linked here, and perhaps the Grade stuff is irrelevant - he'd long since left Channel 4 - but I can't see a fundamental problem with this page.TheGrappler 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced sociological commentary. digitalemotion 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this was a notable UK television controversy LeContexte 11:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• As the nominator, I withdraw my nomination.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no reliable secondary sources. Davewild 08:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GoldiRock

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

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - in the 5 minutes I spent trying to clean up the OR to give him a fair defense, I have not been convinced of this organisation's notability. Quite the opposite, it is pure vanity. Author is User:Jcbarnhart, and this is his sole contribution unsurprisingly. His tendency for vanity is not limited to wikipedia, as you'll see here. This guy does it all. "Singer, Songwriter, Artist, Graphics Designer, Computer-shop owner/operator, GoldiRock Records CEO", not to mention the extravagant claims in the article before my edits. "GoldiRock Records was founded in 2ooo [sic] by Musician, Artist, Writer, Inventor Jeremy Barnhart." amoung others THE KING 08:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No third party sources that confirm notability or significant releases. WjBscribe 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Arkhon Infaustus/Revenge Split 2003

Arkhon Infaustus/Revenge Split 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), it is a single split album. If this release is entitled to a Wikipedia entry there are over 20,000 other releases that would need an article as well. The band itself should be proposed for deletion. (not an exaggeration, see metal-archives.com) -RiverHockey 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eluchil404 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to meet notability under WP:MUSIC. Vegaswikian 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Far from notable enough for an individual article. Can easily be covered by a brief mention in a parent article. WjBscribe 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brave New World Records

Brave New World Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Org. that fails to establish notability +spam/advert Lugnuts 09:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. --Geniac 16:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no reliable secondary sources. Davewild 08:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Altai Records

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

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 09:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No third party references to back up the significance of this label. WjBscribe 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kade Records

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

Org. that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 09:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doubtful WP:V or WP:N can be satisfied. Doctorfluffy 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Iceman (wrestler)

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

Non notable wrestler. No sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Iceman may be notable over there. Tiptopper 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
• Delete. Sufficient notability is not verified. No evidence of coverage of subject by reliable published sources. — Satori Son 15:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Nikki311 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. It's unlikely reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources, probably just a self-bio. The Chronic 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiana Ringer

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tiana Ringer
• Articles for deletion/Tiana Ringer (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.
• Keep sufficiently notable, meets WP:RS and WP:V. JJL 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fernanda Rubio

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

Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I must admit, that the idea of male-to-female transsexual porn stars could bring about a bias in me because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but doesn't appear to have any notability either on an objective level.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} -RiverHockey 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per below argumenst and CSD#A7. --Tikiwont 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Alex and Michael Podcast

The Alex and Michael Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

High chance of original research, only sources are unreliable (MySpace, personal website) VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 07:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If you go to their website, it says that they have 175 channel views. This doesn't sound very notable to me. It is also very revealing that the first news item on their page is "Now on wikipedia". This article is the authors (Lex444) only contribution. THE KING 07:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• guys have some sprit and help some up and coming aussie artists. dont be pricks and shut them down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.34.155 (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hi this is alex from the podcast. this page was made by a young fan of ours from china. and i am honored that he made it for us. and yeah we put "now on wikiepedia" on our site because i wanted to promote our young fans work. so please dont delete us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.34.155 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 November 2007
• Delete Only just started and clearly a very small audience so it doesn't seem nearly notable enough yet.Alberon 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. Wikipedia is not a place to boast your project. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as web content that does not assert significance, tagging as such.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD#A7

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

List of wagers

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

Page is almost orphaned and hasn't really been updated since creation, but more importantly seems to lack focus - the wagers it covers range from theological, logic-based wagers like Pascal's Wager, to mentions of those who broke the bank at Monte Carlo, wagers between gentlemen and fictional wagers. Category:Wagering already exists; this page just seems to bring some quite varied concepts together into a single short list because they all have some connection to the word 'wager'. Mithent 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This could actually be the start of a good article, but I'm not voting keep. Nominator is right... this one makes up for its lack of content by trying to include everything that might be a friendly wager. Some of the stuff looks kinda interesting, might click on it, but not that interested. Mandsford 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What is it? WP is not a directory. Vegaswikian 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. The project is not the yellow pages of "wagers." K. Scott Bailey 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and agree with Mandsford that it possibly has content capability, but as it stands it's just a directory. SkierRMH 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Michael Jackson's awards

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Michael Jackson's awards

List of Michael Jackson's awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Primary sources only, completely unencyclopedic  Funky Monkey  (talk)  21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Michael Jackson. As Funky notes, this is a duplicate of the primary source (which is www.michael-jackson-trader.com). Still waiting for that award of damages he'll owe if he can't settle a lawsuit. Mandsford 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment www.michael-jackson-trader.com does not meet the definition of primary source, unless the topic is www.michael-jackson-trader.com. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh shit! It's even worse than I thought! Mandsford 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well-referenced list of one of the more award-winning artists of the 20th century, whose notability is not in question. This is far too much material to be merged, even if severely trimmed, and it fits the informational purpose of WP:LIST by being a structured list offering information beyond simply wikilinks. --Dhartung | Talk 23:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - reasonable sub-article of Michael Jackson, which is already over 100 KB in size. Needs some better sourcing though. Otto4711 22:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's the reason why I afd it. There have only been primary sources for this article since its inception. I tagged it last year, and again in July after the tags mysterious disappearance, but no verifiable sources have been supplied. We're not a fan site here and all these awards are sourced direct from the subject itself. Clearly unencyclopedic in its current form.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• In the time it took you to tag this for AFD, a simple Google News search would have turned up the sources the article needs. "Unsourced" does not mean "unsourceable" expecially when you're talking about something like music awards. Otto4711 03:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep merging it in the article is simply too unwieldy.--victor falk 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Too numerous to merge into the main article. This can be a featured list just like List of Crowded House awards. Spellcast 11:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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