Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 23

< November 22	November 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep; nominator withdrew, no-one recommended deletion. Non-administrative closure. Spacepotato (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GOLD (ontology)[edit]

Non-notable project. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in at least a few printed sources (according to Google Books using the exact search term "General Ontology for Linguistic Description") and mentioned many thousands of times on the internet. --Oldak Quill 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, talk page will be moved into a subpage of Commonwealth realms, page will be redirected to Commonwealth realms. Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realm monarchies[edit]

Article not needed could all relevant infomation could easily be included in the Commonwealth realm article --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this was the case originally; however a separate section of Commonwealth realm will need be created for the dablinks at the head of each monarchy article to direct to. --G2bambino (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a section Current Commonwealth realms. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make out for sure whether you support keeping the article or support deleting it. Please use one or the other of the conventional "keep" or "delete". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G2 supports deletion, his opion would be Delete. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unecessary; it replicates info at Commonwealth realm. It is founded on a nuance between 'realm' and 'monarchy' which serves no useful purpose. It is not user friendly. The Windsor monarchy is already treated as multiple monarchies in other articles, such as Commonwealth realm.--Gazzster (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the many comments above.--UpDown (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page was a really bad idea to begin with. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever to a reader seeking knowledge in an encylcopedia, whereas it is altogether redundant from that viewpoint. It was created mostly if not solely to help quiet a dispute among editors, about the dablink used on the articles on the "national monarchies" of the Commonwealth realms. I still can scarcely believe that this silly redundant page was created just because people could not otherwise agree on line in a dablink.
If the article is deleted, some discussions from its talkpage will need preserving because they bear on other articles. Transferring them to Talk:Commonwealth realm seems a sensible way to do that. (I warned against holding omnibus discussion here, at the time, for exactly this reason.) -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2007
Delete although it is attractively formatted. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a good idea.--Bduke (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catcam[edit]

Internet meme of questionable notability and encyclopedic significance. The article asserts neither. MER-C 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethology. Think outside the box 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a7. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 prejudice against re-creation in a state where an assertion(s) of notability is presented in a verifiable manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick_Meredith[edit]

Mick Meredith isn't notable at all. He's just some random comedian, this article is also extremely badly written. It has had the notability tag since March, nothings been done. Thmcmahon 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all the article says is that he's appeared on a few shows which is not really telling us anything at all. Article should be deleted - if he ever does anything worthwhile then he might deserve an article.210.84.38.14 03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not yet notable. Decoratrix 04:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 04:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable person. If you take away the trivia and the non-reliable sources, you are left with nothing. - Rjd0060 05:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article quality needs to be cleaned up, and reliable sources added, but I lean toward keeping it if it can be fixed up. --UnleashTheWolves 06:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Montchav (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series)#Games. Core desat 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legend of Zelda Games[edit]

Contested prod. The original prod rationale was "No incoming links, poorly formatted, and redundant with The Legend of Zelda (series)". The article creator disagrees and has already reverted an earlier attempt to redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series). – sgeureka ^t•c 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect currently redundant with The Legend of Zelda (series), however, no prejudice to splitting per WP:SUMMARY should that article become too long. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against a more general "List of The Legend of Zelda media" in the style of List of Kingdom Hearts media. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series)#Games. Article is redundant with the list in the parent article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series)#Games, and create a LoZ category if one doesn't already exist. - Koweja (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to The Legend of Zelda (series)#Games, as that article has the same information with more detail. Also, I note that Category:The Legend of Zelda games already exists. Anomie ⚔ 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. — brighterorange (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Categorize to Category:Portuguese expatriate footballers and Category:Italian expatriate footballers SkierRMH (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese footballers abroad[edit]

list of current footballers abroad, not past and present, unable to up-to-date. Although contain club information, but if the list upgraded to past and present, its should contain all the clubs they played for outside Portugal, even needs more effort. May useful for having a Category:Portuguese expatriate footballers Matthew_hk t c 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also put my article to AFD

List of Italian footballers abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Category looks like a good move, as there are already a few similar categories in Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality. King of the North East 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Category as per KoTN. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to category - as above. GiantSnowman (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to category per nom. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to category per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but cleanup and add sources such as the one mentioned below. Davewild (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill and keep[edit]

Article fails to establish importance. Hammer1980·^talk 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I just can't see where this article is going, maybe add some more details on which phone companies this applies too?--English836 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Kushalsareen (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)the article is open for anyone to improve upon if you think there is room for that, therefore it is neither appropriate nor necessary to consider deletion. Also whilst I can add more details on which companies this applies too, information on such arrangements is of commercially sensitive nature and should not be in the public domain.[reply]

Keep - based on articles such as this, it looks to be an important telecom billing interconnect concept. The article does need sourcing and cleanup, but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill and keep - essentially the same principle as "knock for knock". Rich Farmbrough, 10:13 29 November 2007 (GMT).

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lau on the beach[edit]

Prod removed (tho' technically several hours after the 5 days had expired), so here we are. No refs, and I couldn't find anything relevant--probably WP:MADEUP. Ravenna1961 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources are given and I couldn't find any. The content is unverifiable and it's unclear if it's notable. TSO1D (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely to be notable, more likely a case of WP:MADEUP as a Corona-and-lime mod (as described in the article itself). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found an article about it on a website called Wikipedia, but that's all. I don't think it's a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 am closing this early based on both the unanimity of opinion and the discussion at WP:PNT (referenced below). For future reference, I think that this would have been ok to address via the WP:PROD deletion path. Please let me know on my talk page if you disagree with my closure; I would rather resolve disagreement there than go right into WP:DRV. Thanks --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

نامی پتگر[edit]

Persian text has been hanging around since the beginning of November without anyone translating it. -Yupik (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is from Pages needing translation into English:

WP:PNT dialogue

The language of this article is Arabic. WWGB 12:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Persian. (There is no گ in Arabic.) Andreas ^(T) 12:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Farsi. The article is a bio about an author. Probably notable. Probably should just be moved to fa:Wikipedia. I suspect the uploader does not know how to upload to other Wikipedias. Cbdorsett 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -Yupik (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not english--English836 (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hal peridol (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's since been transwikied into the Farsi Wikipedia (see comment here), so we can take it off of the English version. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside[edit]

Lacks notability, is primarily trivia type content, completely unsourced, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. Relevant and important births, marriages, etc should be covered in a prose section of the show's synopsis section or in the episode list. A listing of ever single one is unnecessary. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Soap operas has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic value. Hammer1980·^talk 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure trivia. Chris! _ct 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders[edit]

No specific sources for anything beyond the quote in the intro, which is not specifically about the show. Lacks notability, is primarily trivia type content, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. Relevant and important births, marriages, etc should be covered in a prose section of the show's synopsis section or in the episode guides. A listing of ever single one is unnecessary. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject EastEnders has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value.Hammer1980·^talk 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia. Chris! _ct 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Finch[edit]

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Ravenna1961 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:MUSIC. dissolve ^talk 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" and "merge" opinions are mostly just votes. Sandstein (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenny's deaths[edit]

Unsourced, lacks notability, fancrufty, primarily trivia type content, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. Yes, Kenny gets killed regularly, but there is already an article to cover this Kenny's deaths (as well as being covered in the main Kenny McCormick article), making this a redundant and unnecessary list. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject South Park has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This topic is currently being covered here, Kenny's deaths, and Kenny McCormick#Deaths. I love South Park as much as the next person, but this is fancruft at it's worst. I'm sure the running gag of Kenny's death is notable in popular culture, but this potential notabilty is not established anywhere on Wikipedia, despite having two articles and a section devoted to it. It is stated at WP:FICTION that articles should be kept "if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article". Wikipedia is not here to list jokes; in order to stay it must establish real-world significance and be reliably sourced. That said, it seems a shame to lose all this information, so it might be a good idea to transwiki the article to the South Park Wiki. Kenny's deaths may be a notable aspect of South Park, but here on Wikipedia we should examine how the joke was created and it's influence on pop culture, not simply listing every variation of it. I reccommend that this article be deleted, that Kenny's deaths be redirected to Kenny McCormick#Deaths, and then the South Park Wikiproject work to find sources examining the topic and include them there. Quality is more important than quantity, and three articles full of in-universe information and original research is not encyclopedic. Paul 730 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Paul's comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paul pretty much summed everything up. Tavix (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Kenny's death, as suggested last time, and again as it is a noticeable/controversial aspect of a popular, multi-season show (I recall commercials even touting how "Kenny dies" on South Park) that has been converted into a film and video games (even a pinball game!). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that notability is established on any of the three articles. It's all in-universe stuff about whether Stan and the others are aware of him dying and stuff. Even if reliable sources could back up what you say (and I'm sure they could), please explain why all that deserves one or more individual article. Let's be honest, Kenny doesn't have a whole lot of characterization besides that joke, there's no reason why his deaths can't be covered in his own article alone. Paul 730 07:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list and prose article on his deaths are a treasure-trove of well-organized, verifiable information that clearly some effort was put into in making. It is the most notable aspect of a recognizable character and one of the famous running gags of a popular show. If this stuff does exist on a South Park wiki that can be linked to from the main article, then that's cool, but it would be a shame to lose it and discourage those who contributed to these articles from editing by having it totally removed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do think the list should be transwikied rather than lost completely, since it's reasonably well-presented information that is of interest to South Park fans. However, Wikipedia does not exist for fans; information should have real world context and, while Kenny's deaths are notable in pop culture, we don't need a list of them to prove that point, we need secondary sources discussing them. We can make the point that he dies a lot without a list - Jason Voorhees is notable for killing people, but that doesn't mean we need a list of all the people he's killed. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, you describe these articles as a "treasure-trove of well-organized, verifiable information". Sorry, but I disagree. The list is unneccessary in-universe detail with no real-world context, the prose article consists entirely of original research and uncited material. These articles, along with the character article and the episode pages, all repeat themselves endlessly, and none of them establish any notability at all. As for deleting material discouraging the editors who created it... sorry, but we can't keep stuff that violates policy just to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Like I said, we can transwiki it and then possibly link to that wiki from the Kenny article. Paul 730 08:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It really is put together nicely and I would hate for us to turn fans of the show away from Wikipedia. When I began editing, I was only interested in a few specific articles, but over the past year, I have worked to improved many different unique articles that over a year ago I would have never thought I would be improving. Being dismisses of fans could lead us down a slippery slope as editors who come for good articles like this one could over time help out in other areas, too. But again, this particular article concerns a central plot element of easily one of the most controversial cartoons of all time, which is in part controvsersial because of such content and there's a real research value to understanding the specifics. After all, wasn't South Park's violence even addressed in Bowling for Columbine? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A nice structure doesn't warrant keeping an article on Wikipedia at all. We should not bend the rules to cater to the fans -- there are many other excellent resources for them around the Internet, and Wikipedia's stance on fictional topics is to provide real-world context about them. If anything, the transwiki of this list followed by an external link to the off-Wikipedia list would reinforce Wikipedia's encyclopedic content. We should instead educate South Park fans on how they can contribute relevant content to Wikipedia -- it takes more steps than just avidly watching the show and being familiar with pop culture, but it's completely possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hope everyone agrees that Kenny's deaths are a notable subject (if not, you could for example see here). This list would have been perfectly suitable for the Kenny's deaths article, but isn't in that article because that would make the article become too long. Therefore, I don't see why it should be anything wrong with having a separate article for the list. Lists such as this one should be seen as parts of the parent article, and the only question we need to ask in this case is: will Wikipedia's coverage of the subject (the 'kill Kenny' gag on South Park) be better or worse without this list? The answer is, it would become worse. It's much easier and user-friendly writing in an article that Kenny died in almost every episode before 2001 if we also have a list showing that he did. People doing research on South Park (for example on the violence on the show) might use this list as a good resource as well. This list is not indiscriminate (it is limited to official South Park media), it is not a collection of loosely related information (South Park episodes are of course closely related), it can not be replaced by a category (Category:South Park episodes in which Kenny dies? no.), and it is not just a list (it doesn't just list which episodes Kenny dies in, but also how he dies, and relevant notes - there should have been more of those).96T (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kenny's deaths. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kenny's deaths. This is ridiculous listcruft bordering fancruft; how it is necessary to list every instance of a running gag - that is, something repeated over and over - I have no idea. •97198 talk 10:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since there's been a few votes for Merge into the Kenny's deaths article, I should probably mention that I've just proposed that article to be merged into Kenny McCormick. I don't see any reason for that article to exist either, since it doesn't establish any notability. Paul 730 11:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kenny's deaths rather than Kenny McCormick. It would be easier to find and will avoid double redirects. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above to either one. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul's thorough argument. I don't see how merging is a possibility because without any of these deaths explored by secondary sources, we'd have to subjectively choose which items to merge. I think it's best to transwiki this list and encourage real-world context behind this trend. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot see a reason for this when it's covered on two other articles. I don't see a reason to merge because you cannot merge the entire list, it's far too large, and as Erik pointed out, it would take a lot of secondary sources to determine which ones were notable enough to include, otherwise you'd be picking whatever you thought was good enough without actually being of any authority to do so. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. I think we're starting to overdo the fancruft/listcruft stuff. Just because something pop culture doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion. Rocket000 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying "it's notable" means nothing if you can't establish that notability with sources, which none of these articles do. Also, your argument works both ways - something isn't worthless because it's pop culture, but that doesn't entitle it to three articles either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Paul 730 05:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure most people agree that it's notable (look at the comments above, even the deletes), I don't feel the need to prove it. I know my argument works both ways, that's why it's a good argument. We got to think more neutral about pop culture. Think of it as instead of watching Comedy Central, you're reading about it in a history book, and vice-versa. It seems anything pop culture receives extra (or undue) attention. I never see things like List of AAR reporting marks: P, List of people on stamps of Sri Lanka, List of baseball jargon (0-9), or List of zoo associations get labeled listcruft. All totally unreferenced, barely any context, no sign of notability, etc. It's only when it comes to pop culture. Just take a look through Special:Allpages/List of sometime, you'll be amazed at what you'll find. But for some reason it's always the lists people actually want, that people actual read, that get nominated. I'm not saying we should definitly have this specific list. Whatever the consensus is, I'm fine with. I was just voicing my opinion. Rocket000 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but "other stuff exists" isn't a good a reason to keep something. As has been stated above by several editors, including myself, Kenny's deaths probably are notable in theory, but that doesn't mean they need their own article or list. A bunch of editors saying the joke is notable isn't helpful unless we have sources to prove it. Unless Kenny's deaths are individually notable, they don't warrant mentioning. If, for example, a certain death ellicited controversy in the media, then it would certainly warrant mentioning. But if not, then it's just another joke on another TV series, and doesn't deserve it's own article. The joke itself can be covered without listing every instance of it. And just because people like it or find it useful does not mean it deserves a separate article or list. Paul 730 06:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't suggesting this article should be keep because "other stuff exists". I mentioned that stuff to help explain to you my point. How pop culture gets special attention. It had nothing to do with keeping/deleting this article. I never suggested each individual death is notable. If they were then they should each have an article. But they're not, that's why a list is appropriate. I'm sorry, but you're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Rocket000 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can I suggest perceiving Wikipedia in a different light? Try to see pop culture from a historical perspective. Every generation, there is a staggering amount of information procured by the media. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, which is determined by reliable sources. While I am all for exploring the cultural impact of Kenny's all-too-frequent deaths, this list is merely a primary-source compilation that does not serve to enhance this particular pop culture notion. There are many different details that could be compiled under a certain fictional topic or an umbrella of fictional topics -- every surgery in medical TV series, every backstab in soap operas, etc. Such details are meaningless if they are not enhanced with real-world context. This is essentially a compilation of plot detail, void of secondary sources. It would be more beneficial to Wikipedia if the topic of Kenny's deaths was fleshed out with information from secondary sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, there's a copy of this article on Answers.com [1], even though the article has yet to be edited. If the article is deleted, I should just copy from the Answers.com article (and if I didn't give a source, it would plagerize the article). However, I really don't want anything to be deleted, and I'm a high-functioning autistic. I do have one question though, would one person consider merging the article with this article? ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (EDT)

Answers.com is a site that mirrors Wikipedia content (though usually a bit behind), so no plagiarism on either end. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. The appropriate coverage already exists in the other articles so no merge is needed nor is it desirable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in Dream Team[edit]

Unsourced, lacks notability, little context as to why its supposed to be noteworthy, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject British TV shows has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value. Hammer1980·^talk 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. RMHED (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in Oz (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced, lacks notability, fancrufty, primarily trivia type content, and does not meet WP:FICTION requirements. While the show does have plenty of deaths, there is no need to have a separate article to document every one and it should already be covered by List of Oz episodes. (relisting of former multiple article nomination) Collectonian (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic value. Hammer1980·^talk 23:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great show, but delete. Deaths of notable characters would be better mentioned in the appropriate bio article. (if that makes sense) A^RendedWinter 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This has great value. As I owe this article very deeply. The death on this show is very important factor as it showing the problems prisons can face. All characters are notable as that is the point of the show. Also because you find the show boring (i.e. a "cruft") is not an opition - explain more tomorrow. MJN SEIFER (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MJN, no one said the show was boring in this debate. (I thought they did - sorry MJN SEIFER (talk))

RobJ1981 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I gave but a month ago. The deaths are one of the most notorious aspects of this multi-season show and this article satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Plus, calling anything "cruft" violates "I don't like it" arguments to avoid. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HelixWind[edit]

Less than year-old company. Most Ghits (like the "references" in the article--start of second ref: "HelixWind is a startup founded by my friend Ken Morgan.") are blogs and other 'anyone can post' sites, and/or brief regurgitations those blogs, etc., or from the company's press releases and/or website. Doesn't seem to have enough broad, reliable coverage to meet WP:CORP. Ravenna1961 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Companies has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was eyeing this a couple days ago. With no improvements to bring it up to par, I'd have to say delete. - Rjd0060 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, but get rid of the link to crispyneurons. Coverage on EcoGeek (which made it on Digg) and Cleantech isn't trivial. - Gecko 18:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Article has potential but needs to have notability expanded a bit.--English836 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources--and even the article--make it clear that there are only prototypes at this point. They are not yet notable for producing anything. WP is NOT advertising to promote new products, especially if the documentation is only blog postings!DGG (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as creation by confirmed sock of banned user:Bonaparte `'Míkka >t 18:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania and transition to a modern economy[edit]

The topic is inherently subjective, and this content already exists at Economy of Romania. TSO1D (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merge if someone manages to get something out of it) also recent articles by Sambura: Economic growth of Romania, Communist economy of Romania, History of economy of Romania, National budget in Romania, High technology in Romania, Romanian currency system and possibly others. They are unfinished, written as essays, unsourced and not fitting the usual form used on WP. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing the user is here for few days someone may gently suggest him to work on a single well defined article at a time. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. The Evil Spartan 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Kuntry King discography[edit]

Does the the subject need its own article. Not sure it is notable in its own right. If not deleted maybe merge with Big Kuntry King. Hammer1980·^talk 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge article with Big Kuntry King, create new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by English836 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Kuntry King. Parent & daughter articles are not long enough where a fork is even remotely necessary. Most of Big Kuntry King is the discography anyway. Caknuck (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for G11. Impossible to rehabilitate in this form. Pigman☿ 00:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of database tools[edit]

Deletion nomination Not actually about what it says, this is an advertisement for a single service, the eDonkey network. There is no evidence that this is a useful list. Even if cleaned up so no longer an advertisement, "comparison of" lists are almost certainly a novel synthesis of ideas, so I am not sure this article should exist at all, even if in a "perfect" state. Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Spammy advertisement. Note: creator has removed the AfD notice multiple times, but it has been put back and the editor warned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, possibly WP:POINT nomination, no real rationale given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Operation Krabby Patty[edit]

Delete non notable ~~television show episode~~ video game. Strothra (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You do realize that you nominated a video game, right? Video games aren't TV episodes. Given that it's a game, it probably passes WP:N. Not that all SpongeBob SquarePants video games are necessarily notable, mind you. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a freaking video game! I used to own it too. Tavix (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Close Invalid rationale ViperSnake151 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable video game. Dont know why this was nominated--English836 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Silent Hill characters. — Coren ^(talk) 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kaufmann[edit]

This article asserts no notability at all and seems to be written totally from an in-universe perspective. I'm no expert on the subject, but I doubt there's enough notable information to turn this into an encyclopaedic article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real-world notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no real world notability; at best should be covered in a character section of the Silent Hill series article or in the specific game articlesCollectonian (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Silent Hill characters. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Silent Hill characters. Tavix (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mezoti[edit]

Delete not notable television character Strothra (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Hiding T 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Hiding T 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub has no primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Trek canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable minor character -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Core desat 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ag Hill (UGA bus route)[edit]

I am also nominating:

These articles are bus routes on the University of Georgia's campus. I can't see how a bus route, even a busy one, passes WP:N. If it was merged to a comprehensive, well-written article on the University of Georgia's transportation system, I suppose that could be notable. Otherwise, delete. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a directory This is a Secret ^account 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Xymmax (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace of creator. I'm getting the last touches up on a wiki that is more appropriate to this information and hope to go live soon - but Wikipedia is not the place for this, no matter how you slice it. Move for preservation reasons. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We normally do that when a person agrees to work on the article to meet it up to standards, not for "preservation reasons" This is a Secret ^account 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Maybe the user should make a backup then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's his only edits, and that was back in early 2006 This is a Secret ^account 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Hammer1980·^talk 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reason this information should be found in an encyclopedia. TSO1D (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable. • Lawrence Cohen 22:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a discussion over bus routes some months ago, and it was decided that they were no notable and all deleted. Some of the articles seemed to be trying almost to put bus time tables in WP. This requires regular maintenance, which is best done by the bus operators. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we merge all three into a single bus article? Alone, they are clearly not notable, but together could be so. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I had a strong urge to follow the opinion delete Just as booking means many different things, there is no such single thing as "e-booking" beyond dictionary definition. A good decision would be to have a disambig page, similar to Booking. Alas, in wikipedia there is close to none possible disambig targets which use this word. As I guess other admins could not know what to do either, since this page sits unclosed so long. However after re-reading this article several times and googling a bit I see that the "not-widely-known government reservation system" is a UK gov't initiative to push for such reservation systems, and as such it is certainly notable, verifiable, and it seems has some verifiable results. Therefore I am closing it as keep and furter processing the content as I see fit (see yourselves in 5-10 minutes) . `'Míkka >t 05:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebooking[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability query by User:Torc2 as to which "Ebooking" correctly means, out of:
1. Booking things over the internet in general, e.g. airlines and hotels.
2. A specific type of not-widely-known government reservation system.
(See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Booking. I merged E-Booking into Ebooking.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - thanks for relisting this. There's no doubt "ebooking" or "e-booking" is a somewhat common term. Just that the two articles that Wiki had on these addressed somewhat isolated uses of the term. This article could either be very short ("Ebooking refers to making reservations online", with a list of different applications - sort of a glorified disambiguation page) or could redirect to ecommerce or a similar article. Torc2 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism(s). Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly not a neologism; this is a widely used term. The page is also more than a dicdef. There are plenty of sources from which the article could be expanded [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and so on. The page needs a thorough rewrite - ebooking is extensively used in the private sector for example - but the topic is encyclopaedic. There is also no easy merge target - eCommerce is too narrow as it doesn't cover the non-commercial uses, for example. I think that this should be kept and expanded. TerriersFan 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2007 NFL Combine invitees[edit]

Combine has long been over, WP:NOT#NEWS, no sigificant notabilty, prod removed for a reason for parent page to have an article (which it does), not indiviual lists Delete This is a Secret ^account 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any notability this had long since has passed. Xymmax (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept because it helps back up the claim in 2007 NFL Draft that many players invited to the combine are later drafted. Said article can help demonstrate which players were at the top at each position, as well as a starting point to where these players later ended up. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources to the NFL Combine article can help decide that, no need for an indiviual article This is a Secret ^account 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - no notability for individual lists for the combines in any given year. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesiastes 2:10-11[edit]

Contested Prod. Text of prod was "Wikipedia isn't the Bible. WP isn't here to provide verse-by-verse copies of religious texts, try Bartleby's for that. As this is unreferenced analysis, it's original research." Seems about right to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contested prod was mine. Author appears to be using WP to evangelize. He also created What's the other side of the mountain? (currently up for speedy deletion), where the entire text of the article is "You want to know what's on the other side of the mountain? God wants you to be removers not climbers." eaolson (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess someone will have to write a WP isn't the Bible essay now... Xymmax (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a bible study guide either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment each individual biblically verse will have centuries of commentary. its part of human life over time, and notability is permanent. But the present article is not a good starting point--someone should do it who is prepared to deal with the Jewish and Christian traditions. DGG (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single passage in the Bible, Torah, etc. isn't notable. • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a site for this sort of thing - and Wikisource has the entire book of Ecclesiastes online - obviating any need for an article here. They have the other books of the bible too. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and tell the originator that it is a devout Christian who is asking this. There are plenty of other places on the Web where one can look up that verse, including Wikisource which has the entire text of the Bible. Also, there is a Wikipedia article about the Ecclesiastes book as a whole. I just don't see someone typing "Ecclesiastes 2:10-11" in the search box. If indeed evangelism is the originator's goal, I just don't see how it will work at all even if we keep the article. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment At some future time when the popular culture wars are over, i do intend to go through some appropriate commentaries and journals providing a reasonably sized discussion and unquestionably reliable secondary sourcing for a number of biblical verses, in the hope that other will follow me in this. There has been an considerably more written about every one of them than about most video games and episodes. Though I'm not going to do this now though for individual articles, as it's too tedious except done in batches. My objective in keeping both sets of articles is exactly the same: documenting notable human activity. DGG (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one per nom, but the not wholesale deletion of Biblical articles, per DGG. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pathetic piece of homework, but on DGG's point there are (generally) better articles in Category:Biblical phrases. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into 1990 Dallas Cowboys season. The Evil Spartan 07:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porkchop Bowl[edit]

Football game with no claim of notabilty, WP:NOT#NEWS, no reliable sources to indicate why this football game is notable from any others, prod removed by a Single-Purpose account Delete This is a Secret ^account 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game is real, but it really isn't notable. Not sourced to show otherwise, and unlikely to be able to fixed. Xymmax (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be at least as notable as Bounty Bowl II, which survived a {{prod}}. Saving a team coach's life seems fairly noteworthy, and also (unfortunately) so does Dallas's bad reaction to his life being saved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect info to 1990 Dallas Cowboys season (and to 1990 Philadelphia Eagles season when it is created). I'm a Cowboys fan, and I can't see the merits of this being a standalone article, especially when the season article is just game linescores at this point. Caknuck (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lee (actor)[edit]

Notability not established. One episode of The Bill and a McDonalds advert fials to show notability. See here. Hammer1980·^talk 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete totally non-notable, I can't believe that even his character in the Bill, Billy Rowan has an article. He was only in 1 episode for goodness sake!. RMHED (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete: Not notable is putting it mildly. Lenky (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- doesn't pass the bar for notability. - Longhair\^talk 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 userfy to User:Peter.keller/Sandbox/Psychology of privacy (already done). KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of privacy[edit]

Prod contested by original contributor. This is a personal essay. It violates WP:SYNTH and is clearly original research. It also borders on soapboxing. Evb-wiki (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Improve~~Delete. ~~Content is currently missing in Wikipedia, yet notable and hence worth keeping. See Talk:Psychology_of_privacy#Deletion proposal~~. I agree with Xymmax's proposal. --Peter.keller (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see that Peter.keller clearly spent a lot of time on this, but it really is purely original research. The tone also is not the neutral recitation of information that is characteristic of an encyclopedia. I would suggest that the author move this to his sandbox, and bring it back when its been sourced and brought to a NPOV. Xymmax (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Constanduros[edit]

Notablity not established and may be an autobiography. Hammer1980·^talk 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a vanity page, and the author/subject is not (yet) notable for WP purposes. Xymmax (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly autobiographical, given username. Not notable. Pishogue (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Santo Domingo[edit]

Don't see notability for an article that only lists televisions stations for a single city. Not a single source is cited, and little to no work has been done on the page since a cleanup tag was placed on it 8 months ago. Newtman (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be verified to Santo Domingo as either a "Communications" or "Transportation and communications" section like other cities. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea, but based on the lack of interest on this page the past 8+ months (despite a cleanup tag), it's unlikely any of the information will be verified. Newtman (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Santo Domingo as a new section, right after the "Transporation" section. I feel the AFD is plenty notable, but is not getting enough attention as a separate article. The article on Santo Domingo, on the other hand, has many more eyeballs on it, and gets several edits per day. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fei Lung Sin[edit]

Newly created art with limited membership and no evidence of notability. Most ghits are actually for an unrelated Chinese fan form of the same name. JJL (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. JJL (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no references. Bradford44 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Chris! _ct 03:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Disarm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete and salt. 2 years, no sources added. Reads like a MySpace bio. --Endless Dan 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed this to the 2nd nomination to remove old, closed discussion from today's log. No vote from me at this time. --Evb-wiki 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverified and never likely to become either. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, even though it's been translated into Italian. Details cannot be verified from any of the g-hits (e.g., YouTube, MySpace, blogs, etc.) and no reliable sources have been provided. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion and expansion during AFD. Davewild (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nodlandsvatnet[edit]

Per List of lakes in Norway There are at least 450,000 fresh water lakes in Norway this is one of them, there is no evidence of notability in fact at this time of the contested prod the lake is not even listed on the List of lakes in Norway Lack of Notability is self evident. Per WP:NOT#DIR "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" Jeepday (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep as deprodder: it's a lake! It can be seen on the maps this, and the Norwegian article, links to when you click on the coordinates. It is actually no small lake in a Norwegian context. I will strongly claim this kind of item is supposed to be in an encyclopedia, especially an encyclopedia without lack of space. I noticed it is a stub, and so is the article on the Norwegian Wikipedia it is taken from, but there is no doubt of the items existence- it is still a lake. When cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, I think a lake should be here. I have noted the general outcomes seems to be "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable"- of course, this does not give much hint of size, but I personally think for an encyclopedia everything qualifying as a lake should be automatically notable, ie at least everything over 0.5 km² should be automatically notable for a Norwegian lake, as that's whats generally known as a lake in Norway. Greswik (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, there are over 450,000 lakes in Norway. There is no reason why this one is notable at all. The article has no information other than where it is and the size. While some of what you wrote is true, the lake, at 3.9 km2, it not a "major geographical feature." For heaven's sake, the Norwegian article has no information other than size and location either! And still no references or links! Delete. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these 450,000 lakes (and I am not sure what that number really means, how do you count lakes?) are probably not worth separate articles (and I would guess most of them don't have names either). However, the lake in question here has some economic significance since it is one of the major reservoirs for hydroelectric production in the area, per this article which lists it as the second largest reservoir for the local power company (just after Spjodevatnet), with a capacity of 20 million cubic metres. It also has some recreative activity [7]. As for the notability of the subject, due to the economic significance, I would call this one comparable to Lake Wingra which is half the size of Nodlandsvatnet. However the article is very brief. Expanding the Eigersund article with geographical information about the lakes, and merging this article with that might be the best option. Outright deletion would remove information on what is a fairly large geographic feature, and I don't support that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as geographical location per above. The standard at List of lakes in Norway is arbitrary and has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines, really, so it doesn't prevail over WP:AFDP per what Greswik said. No merge - if you have info, and are dissatisfied with the article, just expand it Sjakkalle. Punkmorten (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a shot [8]. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a geographic feature -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid arguement. The new links above might warrant notability, but with 450,000+ lakes in Norway alone and millions more worldwide, and millions of other features, notability is not inherent. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't paper, and geogrpahic features are part of teh subject matter that is covered. And as found in common AFD outcomes, "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, one of 450,000 lakes is not a major geographical feature, even if it is big enough to recreate and use for energy. I would accept a merge if possible. if this passes, I may AfD some of the even smaller, less useful lakes together. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acalamari 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dobin[edit]

I nominated this for speedy deletion some time ago, didn't like the feel of it, prod'ded it, didn't like the feel of it, so finally I'm sending this to AfD. This article make several astounding and exceedingly suspicious claims of notability (such as feeding more than 5000 people with bread and fish). Could someone take a look at this, please? GlobeGores (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Why is this not a speedy? A highschool student (12th year), who played badminton in the Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000 and Athens 2004 Olympics? Funny how google doesn't turn up any supporting evidence. Is this not an apparent BLP vio "He is, in the words of Jack Harrison, "a racist" but this is not true". The other notability claim is "His most notable achievements are feeding 5 million with one loaf and a fish". This is not really worth a discussion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete!!! I'm sorry, but these are all obvious lies! He didn't feed 5 million people and wasn't in the olympics at age 5! Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Shaweed[edit]

Non notable person associated with non-notable bodies. Looks like vanity? Oblivious (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does look like vanity. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any Ghits that aren't self-generated; notability seems entirely self-assessed (vanity). Accounting4Taste:talk 17:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sickular[edit]

No sources, highly POV, neologism, a whole buffet of not-tiness UsaSatsui (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and POV. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JohnCD; violates WP:5P. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Resurrection[edit]

Future album with no sources verifying its existence (yet). Delete per WP:CBALL. Spellcast (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, contains no verifiable info yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Hull F.C.#Early years, where all this info is also. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Faithful, rugby league song[edit]

An article about a song that a crowd sang in the 30's. No reliable sources, no indication of notability. Not really an encyclopedic topic. 1 != 2 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three sentences into Hull F.C.. Maralia (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not completely unreferenced I might agree. 1 != 2 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable notability, plus all information in the article is already contained in Hull F.C.. Maralia (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'CAL[edit]

Prod removed by sole author. Subject of article doesn't pass notability requirements. It says that he has not signed with a major record label, nor has he released any major albums or toured. The only references are the subject's Myspace and personal website, which don't count. Zero pages link to it, ang g-hits are inconclusive. Article is author's sole edits. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only album was released 'late in 2007'—and was self-released. From the size of his myspace friends list (~100), it seems unlikely that he's had much exposure yet, and that seems to be borne out by my inability to find independent sources via Google. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Hammer1980·^talk 19:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd agree with Maralia. The exposure is yet to be seen, and there is no reliable, independent sourcing which can verify any claims. Rudget.talk 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossovers between Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and previous Grand Theft Auto games[edit]

The article is essentially a large list of fancruft which fails to meet notability guidelines. There are no references, contains staggering amounts of original research, and has been tagged as needing cleanup for three months now, with no signs of it being done. mattbuck (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability or outside sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking notability and sources. Original research. Miremare 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- irrelevent cruft. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally irrelevant. Hammer1980·^talk 19:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a sythesis of ideas which is not supported by verifiable primary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Louise Young[edit]

Problem here is notability again. I've had a look through all the references given that were accessible, and none of them say anything about her or what she's done. They just mentioned certain comments she made. As there are many of these references, she probably is just notable enough, and this AFD is probably going to fail Montchav (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not much notability, but she does have a knack for getting noticed for her comments. Pretty marginal. Tim Ross·^talk 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of any substantial coverage, as required per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man, subject is close, but as per above, no substantial coverage. The award she won is not one of the major ones, and thus fails WP:BIO. Xymmax (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the attempt to add importance through the use of many sources, a close look indicates the subject is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evil Spartan 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnaught USA[edit]

Page made by "Dreadnaught LLC," this band does not do a good job establishing it's notability. Though it does include some external links, they are all to local news sources. It has no records released by notable lables, and cannot site any larger claim of it's fame other then serving as an opening act for a few major bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piuro (talk • contribs) 2007/11/23 03:41:00

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rescue-able and a notable band. The format was a mess, but now has a reflist. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim the puffery. If I saw this in New Articles, I'd consider a G11 speedy. Caknuck (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep only if it gets overdue work for improvement. Seal Clubber 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Shoman[edit]

An advert, created by the artist himself. Only claims to notability are unsourced, and full of bias (COI), and probably NN. Jmlk 1 7 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable artist, sells prints and does commissioned portraits only. I cannot find any evidence that his work has been displayed in galleries, or much press about his work. David ovic 01:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be successful in a small specialised area, but no sign of meeting WP:BIO. Johnbod (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Clear (and admitted) conflict of interest. freshacconcispeaktome 11:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of above. JNW (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Modernist (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Hammer1980·^talk 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, no notability, no sources. Jons63 (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't yet pass notability muster. • Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Anne Harder[edit]

Non-notable figure. A really really minor candidate in the US 2000 presidential election, but got nothing from it. This sounds like it could mean notability...how many people were candidates in that election anyway? Could anyone apply? Is she notable for running for such a major election? Montchav (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course anyone can "apply" -- run -- for an office and for President, many do. She ran for the Democratic nomination, though, not as a party nominee or independent, and she only got 1500 votes in 2000; but when she ran in 1996 she got 29,500 or so. From what I can tell she may only have been on the ballot in a handful of states each time, so I'm leaning delete. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see that a candidate who stood who got no or little votes 'could' be notable. There would be worldwide coverage of this notable failure. However the references shown do not show this level of notability. Is the notability as an author or a politician? If its the latter then lets see the refs to news articles and pundits doing biog's. Victuallers (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spectacularly non-notable minor candidate, no evidence that she meets WP:BIO. I have looked through her google hits, and find no non-trivial coverage of her candidacy, and only promotional coverage of he other career. She possibly, but only possibly, merits a brief mention in a footnote to List of really obscure minor Texan candidates for POTUS, but nothing more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No independent sources have been provided; the only sources are the candidate's own writings and her campaign website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (subculture)[edit]

It is all original research. It offers no substantial content; all it does is apply the term hybrid to subcultures. Spylab (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 16:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, OR. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Harrington[edit]

Suggesting a redirect to Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006: Western Canada and Territories for this minor candidate for Canadian federal erection, but other pages and disambiguation pages could hinder this. Montchav (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsuccessful election candidate, no evidence of notability per WP:BIO, and no need to clutter up the namespace with redirects to people so clearly non-notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unelected politician -- Whpq (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gillon[edit]

Possible hoax. Doesn't seem to be a single reference anywhere of someone with the name Matt Gillon ever playing rugby, let alone for Blagnac SCR. The apparent source for this information doesn't mention anything for someone by the name either. Being a French team, I checked the French article ([9]), not on there either.

a few google searches;
"Matt Gillon" rugby - two pdfs'. One for a school, another written by someone with the same name. Removing the quotes returns plenty of pages, but I stopped looking after the first 250 results.
"Matt Gillon" Blagnac - Returns nothing, whereas a search for one of the other players of the team (eg, "Boumedienne Allam" Blagnac) finds plenty of info. Again, removing the quotes finds a lot to do with a 'Prunay le Gillon', but nothing usefull (filtering reduces it to two pages [10]) A^RendedWinter 23:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete on the basis of the above research. dramatic (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete please since this is a hoax we do not want this here yuckfoo (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this man played a few games in 2005-06, although mainly for the feeder side and was a regular 7 a side player. He probably played 3-4 for the top team.....twice as a reserve I would guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronan010 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC) — Ronan010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to provide a reliable source that confirms this? A^RendedWinter 07:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have heard of this guy. He got a surprise call-up out of nowhere in 2005 (I think....maybe early '06 actually, either or!) on the wing after two of the incumbents were injured (I think one was actually quite ill) and even scored a good try with his first touch, but his tackling was sketchy, at best! I think he got dropped after that, and then came back into the side for another 1-2 games that season (I think he was a reserve though), but played a number of games for the reserve team and was a good performer in the 7's team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castres (talk • contribs) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if what you say is verifiable, Castres, that wouldn't meet the unofficial notability level applied to New Zeland players (which is a full season in the squad for either NPC or super rugby or playing for a national team (including age-group).dramatic (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not established notability without reliable sources. Hammer1980·^talk 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer1980; need substantial coverage in WP:RS to establish notability, and that's not present here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan baker[edit]

The references for recognitions received have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 2007/11/23 08:23:54

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits for this name on either of the sites listed as references. Unable to establish notability via those references or otherwise. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't link directly to her article in Eyemazing, but she is listed in issue 1 2007. Article in Beautiful Decay is Issue 35 of the Anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenn. JJL (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Hammer1980·^talk 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These references don't prove notability. JNW (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do...there are articles about the topic in credible art magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet, but she is only 16, so no prejudice to recreation.... Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Two 'keeps' by the same IP.~~ As per Johnbod, this can be revisited in the future. JNW (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The Beautiful Decay is not a credible art magazine (it's mainly an online store). Eyemazing reference does not include any actual bibliographic info, such as a page number or issue number. freshacconcispeaktome 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment What is it about the non-notable, self-promotional articles always using the lower-case for the last name? Must be something to that.... freshacconcispeaktome 15:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the issue numbers were noted earlier in this page, they have now been added to the references section of the article as well. The reason the last name of the subject isn't capitalized is that when I created the article, a page for a "Megan Baker" (a different one) had already been created and deleted and therefore my article by default reverted back to the original title form. Would also like to note that this article is not "self-promotional" in any way as its author (me) is not its subject, just someone with a strong opinion about art and the necessity of supporting independent and up-and-coming artists. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS => violates WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Memorial Hospital[edit]

Keep Why is this page being deleted? This hospital is not closed permanently but is currently being redeveleloped. Gsingh (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the closure was permanent (it isn't), notability would not expire. This hospital seems to have plenty of third party coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, nominator gave a "keep" vote. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anon IP user tagged the article for AfD. The nomination is procedural. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible speedy close, seems to be an underhanded move related to this somehow. Needs sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge into William Osler Health Centre.) Notability is permanent, sure, but there are no sources for this hospital ever being notable. Dhartung, if you think there is evidence of notability, just what is it? I do not think we have ever established any principle about the notability of hospitals. I'd accept that the major teaching hospital of a medical center, or the major regional hospital in a metropolitan area of other considerable region is notable, but for any others i would want actual sources. DGG (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that most acute care hospitals are generally accepted as being notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport_in_video_gaming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sport in video gaming

Poorly written article, which reads more like a report than a real article. Also seems to be of little encyclopaedic significance. The Wiki Priest (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article seems to be about "video games as a sport", and has tone issues, aswell as formatting issues. Those can be fixed. The more challenging problem is to make this into a neutral article about the phenomenon of "video games as a sport" and not an essay discussing if it is a sport (which it is now). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be more of an essay on video games as a sport, than an actual encyclopedic article. However, it could be rewritten into a more unbiased explanation of the history of video games acceptance as a sport. User:Dodopod —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay. AS per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete removing the WP:NOR essay parts, it's an A1. Valid topic, but this isn't an article This is a Secret ^account 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted, it could be an interesting topic for an article. This was someone's interesting idea for a term paper, so badly written that it may have gotten a B minus. Mandsford (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant and inferior to electronic sports. No value as a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much more to add to this debate; this reads like a school essay and covers the same topic as electronic sports. --Scottie_theNerd 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fogponics[edit]

This article lacks reliable independent sources verifying the notability of the subject. Googling the term, I did not find useful sources that I could use to improve the article. Prod and prod2 removed without comment by single-purpose account. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fogponics appears to be the name of the company that sells these products, so this is purely advertising - possible Speedy Delete?. --DAJF (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a commercial neologism and an advertising article, and removal of prods does not look like good faith. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Looks like blatant advertising. Hammer1980·^talk 19:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Aeroponics 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Maxim. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurence Town Centre[edit]

non-notable shopping mall Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of context, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. No evidence given that subject meets WP:BIO. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Rokison[edit]

This doesn't look like a very notable actor. The profile says he's been in 12 episodes of a TV series and had what looks like a little role in one film. Beyond that, I see nothing close to notable. Metros (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable, especially now that he seems to have given up acting at this early stage in his career.Hammer1980·^talk 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just William (1990s TV series) RMHED (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:BLP. Featured actor on a 90's show in Britain. I've never heard of him, but that means nothing. His career ended pre-Google. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note BLP is a policy in regards to what we can and can't say in biography, it has nothing to do with notability. Metros (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as he held a starring role in a television show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to Far than Near[edit]

Unverifiable article about probably not existing band without working website but fake references Tikiwont (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages of the two musicians:

Delete All AS per nom. Looks like utter garbage. Hammer1980·^talk 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note AFD wasn't listed at time of creation. Listed now. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was already listed for November 23,[11] , so I'll remove the second one for November 24.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeep. My bad. I couldn't find it. Sorry, not quite sure why I didn't see it. "Ctrl+F" ed and all FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just came back because it was listed via Twinkle and not listing it might have indicated a bug. And now we shoul dspeedily close this.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. Absolutely no evidence found for existence of group, members or the allegedly infamous "The Bite Incident". All the references are actually links to Wikipedia articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Per Hammer. Probably a hoax anyways, unsourced (exept WP articles, as Flowerpotman says). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. I could find no independent confirming sources, and their claimed label, Beggars Banquet Records, does not list them [12] as current or former artists. Hal peridol (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danish European Union opt-outs referendum[edit]

The referendum hasn't been called yet, and it may not happen for several years to come. Besides, the intention is to call the referendum, but that will only happen with a majority of votes in parliament. Probably won't be a problem, but it still seems to me as a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a crystal ball. The PM announced yesterday that his government indends to hold a referendum but both the PM and his deputy stated that it has not yet been decided how many of the opt out clauses that will be included in any such referendum, and they also declined commenting about a date. The announcement was made as part of a 200+ clause policy manifesto, and as I understood the PM's speech, he was just repeating a promise made back in 2005. At the moment, this is merely a political vision, nothing definite. Provided that the government remains in power, it is also uncertain whether this will be the next referendum or whether this title will go to the future vote on the succession law, so I'm removing the link to this article from the list of Danish elections since the word "next" is used in that context. Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if the referendum isn't called, the context and issues surrounding it are notable -- and there's lots of independent sources about such a referendum. —Nightstallion 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent, by the way -- various governments announced referendums on the failed Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and we've still got articles for the cancelled referendums (WITHOUT dates, too) on Wikipedia, confer the links in {{EU Constitution}}. In my opinion, this is neither crystal ball nor deletable on any other grounds. —Nightstallion 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightstallion. However, if this is all data that exists, merge it to Politics of Denmark a.k.a. Elections in Denmark. When there is more info on the referendum, an article should be recreated - however only if this is as far as it gets right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a bit more information, but we've often got stubs on announced elections with little content, just as placeholders to people know where to put info... —Nightstallion 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightstallion. Everyking (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the precedent Nightstallion mentions is convincing: there are other pages on announced referenda. Either they all go or they don't. C mon (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources on the topic. In addition, this referendum never happened, yet is worthy of an article too. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nightstallion, this topic is important and has a lot of potential to develop even before the vote is called. It certainly isn't doing any harm. - J Logan ^t: 09:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nightstallion and JLogan. - $\mathrm {S}$ . $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ . 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Nightstallion. Etherialemperor (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep/nom withdrawn (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOAF (software)[edit]

This article describes a topic insignificant to the Web and computer science. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although this is not a widespread standard (it's an open source social software/semantic web machine interface) it meets WP:SOFTWARE with dozens of citations in Google Books and computer journals. Speculate this is a bad-faith nomination by a single-purpose account, whose first edits are AFD noms. --Dhartung | Talk 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further context in article history, article Talk page, and the 17 hours of 72.49.162.143 (talk · contribs) contributions to Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, I certainly did create an account to nominate this article. This does not make my nomination bad-faith. Perhaps in your search for evidence you noticed the author of the article created it because he merely wanted to remove the material from another article and had no idea what to do with it. The external links are filled with 404 errors. There's no legitimate citations because none exist. The projects related to this standard are barely existant. From a computer science perspective, this whole topic is obvious and insignificant. If you'd like to discuss substantive issues regarding the article, I'd be glad to here from you. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'm not a regular Wikipedia user and don't know about the policies/guidelines I vote for keep. I agree with the citations argument of Dhartung because FOAF is frequently mentioned in web related papers, about as frequently as the Dublin Core. I agree that the content of the article needs cleanup but deletion is not necessary, in my humble opinion. --GrandiJoos (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's "significant coverage" of this standard in any source. They refer to it mostly when using it as an example schema. No one I've seen has really gone into a discussion of FOAF itself. GrandiJoos, do you know otherwise? LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. FOAF is pretty significant ("FOAF project", which refers specifically to the subject of this article, gets 2.1 million hits on Google), not sure why this would be nominated for deletion. It may not be taught in a computer science course, but that is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. I agree with User:Dhartung that this is probably a bad faith nomination. --Oldak Quill 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from what everyone else has said, FOAF is supported by LiveJournal, so it's hardly insignificant. Jonobennett (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Tim Berners-Lee in a recent essay redefined the Semantic web concept into something he calls the Giant Global Graph, where relationships transcend networks/documents. He gives the GGG equal weight as to the Internet and WWW (!), and states "I express my network in a FOAF file, and that is a start of the revolution." Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I changed my mind (the one who proposed deletion). I think the Berners-Lee article adds some notability. LastChanceToDanceTrance (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been slashdotted! (I think!) LiveJournal implements it! (I think!) Just a vague hunch, but if LJ folks implement a web technology it has some chance of having some relevance somewhere. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - consensus is clear. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Delaney[edit]

Non-notable individual. Only claim is chair of self founded Arnis organisation, no sources Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Modern Arnis is a notable art--the most popular FMA in the world due to it inclusion in high school P.E. programs in the Phil.--and he was selected as one of the two co-successors by its founding GM (see Talk page of the article). Many ghits for "Jeff Delaney" arnis. Frequent advertiser in Black Belt mag. and I.K.F., so his picture is constantly in there. Org. he heads was founded by Remy Presas in his claim: It split in two and both of the new heads claim that theirs is the "right" one. The News page at his web site [www.professorpresas.com] shows annual international seminars across N. America. JJL (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like him or not, Jeff Delaney is the head of one of the larger Modern Arnis organizations, produces a number of instructional videos for the art, and does a significant amount of promotion through advertisement and seminars of the art, with at least 1 noted on his site and elsewhere.--Bob Hubbard (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like of dislike him as I have no idea who he is & the article doesn't provide evidence for the claim to notability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information would meet your requirements? Press releases, magazine interviews, videos, etc?--Bob Hubbard (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesgive a good idea of the standard of sources required. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2001 issue of Black Belt Magazine. - Article by Jeff Delaney / Unknown Date - Interview with Jeff Delaney by Willie Wilson

http://www.karatefive.com/delaneyview.html - Not sure if these qualify. Black Belt magazine has published at least 1 article by him. They also regularly list his events.--Bob Hubbard (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs secondary sources to support claims of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted and mentioned on competing website as one of the seven "Masters of Tapi-Tapi" (http://www.modernarnis.net/about/master.shtml). Qoute from the same site: "Master Delaney was appointed Co-Successor in for the International Modern Arnis Federation (IMAF) in October 2000, to assist Dr. Randi Schea, Successor, and also to assist with the Masters of Tapi Tapi, to assure the success and prosperity of the Vision and Art of Modern Arnis as per the wishes of Professor Remy Presas."Palusut (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good info, are there any secondary mentions of him? That is sufficint to start with but a secondary would be better --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor Remy Presas, the founder of Modern Arnis, regarded Mr. Jeff Delaney in high enough esteem to have him witness the gradings of 1st through 5th degree black belts, including a large German ceremony in 1999 where 30 1st through 5th degree black belts tested for rank and Professor praised the high level of Modern Arnis found in the DAV (a competing organization to Mr. Delaney's IMAF). This event was recently mentioned in FMA Digest's 2007 Special Edition.

Source: http://www.fmadigest.com/Issues/special-editions/2007/Special-Edition_DAV.pdf --Carol Kaur 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obaid Azam Azmi

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

The result was delete Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obaid Azam Azmi[edit]

Poet of questionable notability - the claim in the article about being the "fourth greatest" ghazal poet is unattributed. Unable to find any reliable information beyond a name and photo despite numerous searches. Compare 35 unique GHits for the name[13] with the thousands of hits for any other name in Category:Urdu poets, or in Ghazal#Important Poets of Urdu Ghazal. Possible case of self-promotion, judging by edit histories inserting the name into other WP articles. ~Matticus ^U_C 09:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following articles to this AfD as they are largely identical:

Obaid azam azmi
Azmi

~Matticus ^U_C 10:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, unless sources that aren't his own website are provided to verify the information. I also notice this user created another article on the same subject (Obaid azam azmi) which should probably be included in this AfD. shoeofdeath (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It turns out that these articles are part of a spamming campaign to promote the subject and some associated sites, see WT:WPSPAM#Indian poetry spam. Obaid azam azmi and Azmi should also be deleted because they share the same subject. MER-C 12:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added them both to this AfD; the content is largely identical. ~Matticus ^U_C 10:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Queen[edit]

As yet unreleased novel, see [14]. Written like a press release. Delete, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Reads like an advertisement.Hammer1980·^talk 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete `'Míkka >t 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ellis[edit]

Self-promotion of a nonnotable columnist Laudak (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated:

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. I'm conominating one of his WP:NEOlogisms; fortunately taste tribes remains a redlink.--Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both, no evidence of substantial coverage in any independent sources, let alone reliable sources, as required by WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added my own entry, since someone else added an entry for my "Grim Meathook Future" essay. If you feel I did this in error, then please do remove my entry. Alternately, if you'd like me to provide evidence of notability in external sources, please let me know and I can do so. --Jzellis (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add evidence of notability either here or to the discussion pages, but not to the article directly. -- Michael Bernstein (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected advice: the evidence of notability must be prominently present in the article in form of references to publications in what is called "wikipedia:Reliable sources". In your case it is also particularly important to peruse the wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy (on writing articles about yourselves). Laudak (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not interesting, not enough independent sourcing. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will put together evidence of notability. However, I don't feel the article is particularly self-promoting, as Laudak says; I merely added an entry explaining who I was and what I might be known for. (Note that I didn't provide a title or link for my newspaper column, for example.) My intent was never self-promotion -- I recognize full well that Wikipedia is an inappropriate place for that, and again it was not my intention. I can provide a list of similar entries for other people of my apparent level of notability.

As regards my entry being "interesting" or not, as Fee Fi Foe Fum argues...if that's really a criteria for deletion of articles on Wikipedia, I hardly think my modest entry stands out. There are entries on Wikipedia on topics of such staggering dullness as to almost cause damage to the human mind. In the face of such truly heroic boredom, how could I possibly compete? -- Jzellis —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring more to the grim meathook page than the person page. Jump starting memes just makes them jump the shark all the sooner. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 02:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megan baker[edit]

The references for recognitions received have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 2007/11/23 08:23:54

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits for this name on either of the sites listed as references. Unable to establish notability via those references or otherwise. Maralia (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't link directly to her article in Eyemazing, but she is listed in issue 1 2007. Article in Beautiful Decay is Issue 35 of the Anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenn. JJL (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Hammer1980·^talk 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These references don't prove notability. JNW (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do...there are articles about the topic in credible art magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.80.25 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet, but she is only 16, so no prejudice to recreation.... Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Two 'keeps' by the same IP.~~ As per Johnbod, this can be revisited in the future. JNW (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The Beautiful Decay is not a credible art magazine (it's mainly an online store). Eyemazing reference does not include any actual bibliographic info, such as a page number or issue number. freshacconcispeaktome 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment What is it about the non-notable, self-promotional articles always using the lower-case for the last name? Must be something to that.... freshacconcispeaktome 15:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although the issue numbers were noted earlier in this page, they have now been added to the references section of the article as well. The reason the last name of the subject isn't capitalized is that when I created the article, a page for a "Megan Baker" (a different one) had already been created and deleted and therefore my article by default reverted back to the original title form. Would also like to note that this article is not "self-promotional" in any way as its author (me) is not its subject, just someone with a strong opinion about art and the necessity of supporting independent and up-and-coming artists. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneestrees (talk • contribs) 22:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS => violates WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Theta (Massachusetts Gamma)[edit]

Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) a webspace provider for individual chapters of student organizations. Similiar articles of individual chapters have been subsequently deleted in the past. --Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Individual chapters of fraternities and similar organizations are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent, local student organizations are not notable. Caknuck (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Luck (Star Wars)[edit]

No assertion of real-world notability. Sources from roleplaying and "history" book provide only in-universe material (matching article's in-universe plot-summary content); there is no real-world perspective. Also nominating for the same reason

Errant Venture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chimaera (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--EEMIV (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. • Lawrence Cohen 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diego antigen system[edit]

Does not appear to be remotely notable, but I could be wrong. Might be one for medical experts to weigh in on? this is all I can find. • Lawrence Cohen 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The link at the bottom of the page, to NCBI, itself gives 14 references. In PubMed, a search for "diego antigen" gives 3 good specific ones-- and there are others under other synonyms. (I've added the two most accessible) Google Books is not usually the best approach for verifying topics in modern science. DGG (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks DGG. Changing to Keep/withdrawing for myself then... • Lawrence Cohen 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Core desat 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponyms[edit]

Listing all eponyms is the definition of an indiscriminate list. An eponym is any word derived from a person. While some more specific lists of eponyms do exist, such as List of eponymous adjectives in English and List of eponymous laws, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should not have a list that due to volume can never be complete. Could be redirected to Eponyms#Lists of eponyms -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and useful and found in other encyclopedias. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' The subject of eponyms and the persons who supply the name is encyclopedic, contrary to the suggestion that this is simply trivial. Google books search shows an appreciable number of titles, ranging from pure reference (A New Dictionary of Eponyms, Eponyms in Psychology, Dictionary of Medical Eponyms, etc.) to entertainment (Melba Toast, Bowie's Knife and Casesar's Wife; Guppies in Tuxedos, etc.). This is not, contrary to assertion, an indiscriminate list, nor is it unmaintainable, though it's interesting that it's argued as both. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mandsford's research. The topic appears to be specific enough to merit a dictionary and other books. I don't think the list qualifies as indiscriminate since its foundational topic meets notability guidelines. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good example of a notable list. Mandsford should add the references he found. DGG (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing has been presented to refute or address the argument that this is POV OR. Core desat 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homofascism[edit]

Original research - may be remarkable as a phenomenon, but it has not often been described using this term. One of the main google links is to the same website as the fifth link in the 'Examples' section - under a heading "Is homofascism really a word?" Avruch ^Talk 05:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. The subject may or may not be notable, but that doesn't mean any term coined to describe it gets an article. - Koweja (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a worthy phenomenon with many reported incidences. The Wikipedia:Avoiding Neologisms page seems to describe "some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society." as being acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. For an article I just wrote, I already included four examples, examples of its usage on the internet, etc. I would at least allow time for expanding this article. Jakes18 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(That should be Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms)
Delete as hopelessly POV. That the creator chose to include the article in Category:Fascism is pretty revealing in that respect. The article does not meet any speedy deletion criterion but a snowball delete might be in order. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A POV page can be edited to remove apparent bias. Rather than demanding a delete for a term with which you may not be comfortable, why not edit the article to address the supposed point-of-view expressed? Jakes18 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I used the term "hopelessly POV". This can't be fixed: it's a term rarely used in any sort of academic context. The article defines it as a term used "to describe the silencing and persecution of those opposed the GLBT rights movement", which could be rewritten as "homofascism is a term occasionally used by rabid conspiracy theorists on a handful of fundamentalist christian websites who imagine that they are being targeted by the gay mafia". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for examples of articles on neologisms (or newer / rarer terms) which WEREN'T deleted, try Homocon, Potato Queen, DL Thug, and Trans-bashing. Jakes18 (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One Google book entry and one Google news entry, lots of blogs:

Only Google News entry: Nation's eyes on Christian protesters - Four who disrupted a... $2.95 - Philadelphia Inquirer - NewsBank - Jan 12, 2005 "This homofascism has come to our doorstep; it's in America," said Ralph Ovadal, head of Wisconsin Christians United, in a recent radio program. ...
One Google Book entry: Political Inversions: Homosexuality, Fascism, & the Modernist Imaginary - Page 63 by Andrew Hewitt - Literary Criticism - 1996 - 333 pages To this extent, then, we can see how models we have set up as potentially dichotomous in Adorno's presentation of homofascism—narcissism and ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. The title of the second citation uses the term; it may be a blog entry, but this vouches for its existence. The third and fourth links are from an article entitled "From Homophobia to Homofascism", on a popular Christian site; and the fifth includes the term "homofascism" in the comments, again vouching for its existence. --Jakes18 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blogs don't count toward notability. I could invent a new word right now and start 10 blogs and use the word. It has to come from Google Books or Google News or Google Scholar. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism with no widespread use that I can find. Nick mallory (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable new term that has been widely used, discussed, and critcized. JJL (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet." Diego (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just added the other (academic) meaning of the term (which appears in academic texts), namely connections between homosexuality and fascism made by Adorno and the like, while keeping separating the disputed political meaning into a section of the article. --Jakes18 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't escape the feeling that you don't really know who Theodor W. Adorno is or what his ideas on this subject were. (Read e.g. Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Fascism_and_homosexuality_in_the_Left_imagination) There is simply no link between this and the term homofascism as it is used in this article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I SEPARATED the "political" meaning of the term from the "academic" meaning. Please read the entire article if you wish to make judgments on it. I wrote "Homofascism is also used, in a separate sense..." before giving the political meaning, from when I first put the mention of the Frankfurt School on the page. Thank you. --Jakes18 (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it should be kept. It describes known phenomenon. Article needs some changes, but should stay. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the other 'kept' neologism for deletion, thanks to Jakes18 for pointing them out. Avruch ^Talk 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV neologism. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Under "Articles on neologisms" please note:

There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:
The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.
In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion).

Massive OR, unreliable sources and the misuse of sources contrary to their purpose. The Google book link isn't about Homofascism but the treatment gays have received under facism. The link to the Queer Theory conference shows that the person who did the OR has no understanding of the contexts in which the paper was presented, nor does the ed. have the paper and cannot cite the authors conclusion on the subject. If one could actually cite Adorno, they would see that it is a connection to between being gay and actually being a fascist - having to do with typology and aporia. There are academic sources which treat with subject but not in the way the article suggests. There is not one reliable resource on this whole page, academic or political. Google stats are not appropriate for as research, one as their irrelvant in an encyclopedic article; two, they're original research. Phyesalis (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per many of the reasons above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to The Bold and the Beautiful Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Baker (B&B)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Charlie Baker (B&B)

Should be merged into an article about the soap opera itself, does not need its own article. Avruch ^Talk 05:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : It appears that it could be done outside of AfD. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - with The Bold and the Beautiful. Tiptoety (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect As per Tiptoety. Hammer1980·^talk 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This character is a contract role on a very popular show. He is notable for being B&B's first regular African-American character. Kogsquinge (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already been deleted twice before as not notable. There's no reason it should be here now. I searched two reliable sources for soaps, neither list him as contract and this "part" is not listed in the actor's IMDB profile. It's not likely a contract role but more likely a recurring, short term role. Regardless, the article's been deleted twice and should remain that way. IrishLass (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a contract role. There isn't a lot of info about it online because he only began appearing on the show last week. The news section on the official B&B site (http://www.boldandbeautiful.com) states "Mykel Shannon Jenkins joins the cast of THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL in the contract role of "Charlie Baker," Executive Producer and Head Writer, Bradley P. Bell announced today." Every other B&B contract character has an article here. Why should this one be any different? Kogsquinge (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No, not every other contract role character has an article here. If he lasts more than 13 weeks, then he should possibly have a page if he's not a one hit wonder. Daytime often hires someone on "contract" but it's only for 6-13 weeks. If he is truly a long term player, then he should have an article. There are several characters from Days of our Lives that were contract but never had an article because their "contract" was only 13 weeks. Contract doesn't mean notability.IrishLass (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- all indications are that this is a new contract role. Obviously, since the role only began a few days ago, there is not much current information, but more information about the character will be revealed as time goes on. Dbart (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Accounting4Taste as repost. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bundaism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

http://bundaism-org.com/ seems to be the main Internet source for this. (Communion through the buttocks of Gods holy daughter). Clearly a non-notable religion (36 google hits) with no references. Avruch ^Talk 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted content. - Koweja (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago (2006 song)[edit]

The artist-singer Clueso seems marginally notable, but this single plainly fails WP:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doesn't seem to be anything to merge into the Clueso article. - Koweja (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Anarchia (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge all into List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters, except Becky Granger and Carla Connor. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Dent[edit]

Most of these articles are "In-universe" articles (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional characters on the show Coronation Street. Over half the subjects have been on the show less than a year and haven't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT or per WP:SOAPS.

Added Note: A regular search of any of these turns up very little besides episode guides and ITV (the network the show is on). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of characters I'm nominating:

Marcus Dent - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Joshua Peacock - 3 hits on Google News, all in passing, 5 years old, no notability asserted.
Amber Kalirai - 3 hits on Google News, all the same, not about Amber, no notability asserted.
~~Becky Granger - 2 hits on Google News, not about Becky, 2 years on the show, no notability asserted.~~
Freddie Peacock - 1.5 yrs old, no notability asserted.
~~Carla Connor - 2 hits on Google News, both in passing, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.~~
Roger Stiles - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Doreen Fenwick - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Jerry Morton - 1 hit on Google News, in passing, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Darryl Morton - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Mel Morton - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Kayleigh Morton - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Finlay Bryant - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
John Stape - 0 hits on Google News, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Tony Gordon - 1 hit on Google News, in passing, less than a year on the show, no notability asserted.
Lauren Wilson - only just joined, no history, no notability asserted.

These should all be merged into List of recurring and minor Coronation Street characters, whence most of them came.

Delete: as nominator SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "List of" article and turn pages into redirects. - Koweja (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect or Delete non-notable characters. RMHED (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them into one article.Tavix (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete specific articles, by selection of article importance, quantity and importance of character history. I personally have always hated a new article made for every new character introduced, no matter what soap is in reference. Wikipedia is not a soap box, but I can see why there is an arguement for character articles to exist here. In saying that, the vast majority of those stated above I would fully agree to be merged within the "List of" article, with the exception of Becky Granger and Carla Connor, both who have sizeable history contents (even if sized down), and will only cause unnecessary clutter to the "List of.." article. Articles Marcus Dent and Tony Gordon, regardless of current show duration, I can't argue for even any sort of wikipedia existance, at least not at this current time. As has been standard practice for many months, merged articles should be redirected to respective section on the "List of.." article, rather than full deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them in Recurring characters except Carla Connor who is currently in a large storyline and has a large history in the show for a character of a near 1 spell on the show, Becky Grainger also has a very large history and is a regular character and is the backbone of Roys Rolls Ant parker (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the "size" of the storyline or the amount of time on the show, Carla Conner and Becky Grainger still have no notability by WP:N, WP:FICT, or WP:SOAP. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect SatyrTN, your original proposal in this AfD was to merge the above articles listed into an article which has a purpose to provide information for "minor" and "recurring". The 2 articles in question in my previous comment, the above and your's are far from being able to be described as "minor" or "recurring". I can't stress enough how much I hate all these articles flying around, and would like it if every new character was added to the "list of.." article, but putting these 2 in would question the definition of the "list of.." article, expand it to an unnecessary length and would, in theory, need a name change to "List of recurring and minor characters and those who have been active for less than a year in Coronation Street" (ok, maybe a bit OTT, but you see my point). Try not to forget what the original proposal is you are making, and what will need to happen, should the above (of these 2 particular characters) undesirably occur. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Carla and Becky's should stay, Carla and Becky are hardly recurring as they appear more than most of the casr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant parker (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of them have potential to be more than just plot summary, but those that dont can be merged until they do. Sourced critical commentary, popularity, real world impact, information on casting, details on storylines, reception, ratings, comments from actors and writers are all things that could be added to make them comply with policy. The UK media often reports on soaps and there are regular interviews with actors, so sources shouldn't be difficult to find. Here's some I found for a brief search for Carla [15][16][17][18][19]Gung adin ♦ 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to rescind the AfD for Carla and Becky (struck out in the list above). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They'll never get any hits on Google as the characters are developed if someone erases all the bios.

Exactly. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all remaining nominations. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is wholly in-universe with no real-world context. There was a clear consensus for deletion. TerriersFan 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mount Hyjal[edit]

As much as I love Warcraft III, this article has no notability outside of it, no references, and therefore should not have its own article. Besides, its all duplicative and the plot section of Warcraft III already has all of this information. Judgesurreal777 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WoWWiki is a Wikia project now. Redirect this entry to it instead, if possible.--Silverhand^Talk 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One reason not to redirect, wowwiki is blocked by many IT teams, where wikipedia is not. Whiskeyricard 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Pagra shtak 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If WoW has its own wiki then it belongs there. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos which is mentioned as the game in which the battle is re-enacted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki entire article to WoWwiki, then trim and Merge notable information into game's article. - Koweja (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to merge. It's a duplicated and massively expanded version of the Warcraft III plot's finale, which takes up about the same amount of space as the entire Warcraft III plot section, which itself has been appropriately summarized. It's also an instance in WoW, but an overly-detailed in-universe section on an instance isn't appropriate either. The subject matter has been covered in separate articles on WoWWiki, which seem complete, purdy and well-organized. Basically, this is exactly the sort of excessive detail we should be collectively nipping in the bud, all it does is waste contributors' time and ultimately it'll end up in a better format on a more appropriate site. In total agreement with nom.Someone another (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I looked at the article I suggested as the target for the merge, there was no mention of the Battle in that article. Merger can constitute extreme contraction to a handful of lines and redirection (including use of R-from-merge template). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WoWWiki refers to that battle in Warcraft III as taking place during Twilight of the Gods, the name Battle for Mount Hyjal is used to refer to the World of Warcraft instance which used the same plotline. ~~Because someone has already listed and cited the Warcraft III plotline, putting anything from here could be fixing what isn't broke and introducing unsupported material into a cited section.~~ Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of merging whenever possible, but I don't think it accomplishes anything in this case and the article should just be let go.Someone another (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck text, I could have sworn that section was cited up to the eyeballs, clearly it isn't.Someone another (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since the Instance (World of Warcraft) article has been deleted, trying to explain within the WC3 plot text that the battle was used in World of Warcraft as an instance is going to be wordy and of debatable benefit, IE the very term Battle of Mount Hyjal isn't necessary within WC3, if you see what I mean.Someone another (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not real-world, fancruft. PKT 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not real. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Luther Apatha Brown[edit]

Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Hammer1980·^talk 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, nor is it given to you by the people you associate with.Tiptoety (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it has many claims, but WP:BLP requires every claim to be backed up. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to School District 36 Surrey and update the target correspondingly (without selflinks but a notes column). This takes into account the arguments of all three related AfDs and the initial one as well as the fact that the nomination is sufficiently refined to allow for now a consensual common editorial solution That . --Tikiwont (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles Elementary School (Surrey)[edit]

Renomination of bundle of stub articles about elementary schools expanded from a list, School_District_36_Surrey. Last one failed as a train-wreck. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to save. Non-notable, no sources, no text. "As deletable as they come." CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the last AfD (from only two weeks ago was closed as a keep not because it was a trainwreck, but because the general idea was that listing a large number of schools at once was a bad idea and they should be handeled separately. What makes you think this second mass nomination (albeit spread out over three different AfD pages) is any different? I am not sure this nomination (in this way) is such a good idea. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecole Riverdale Elementary School
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Trail Elementary School

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 36 Surrey. RMHED (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no references whatsoever. Doesn't give much more than their existance. Reywas92^Talk 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - schools cannot be considered as a bundle. Each one has a different range of sources and consequently require individual consideration which they won't get here. Lack of references is not a deletion argument; it is an argument to tag and improve. Deletion is for when the sources are not available to stand up notability, not for when they are not included. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who that they can't be bundled? Do you have any specific ones with a consideration? Actually, lack of sources is an arguement. To pass notability and be included in our encyclopedia, each one must have two independent sources, which they don't have. Anyway, there's been a bit of a precedent that in general, elementary schools are not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every school. In my opinion, If you want them to stay, I'd like you to improve them now, and not just tag and add it to the waiting list. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, this is a bundled nomination. There is no policy against these, although frowned upon by some editors. You will note that not all the schools from the original AfD were nominated. The ones which are renominated all share one common characteristic (other than being in School District 36 Surrey) is that elementary schools are not inherently notable; none of them appear notable in any way, and notability is not meaningfully asserted for any of them. Ones which were more than a one-liner have not been nominated, along the lines of the arguments listed here for wholescale deletion of TV and radio mast stubs. Individual AfDs for these, which can and should be grouped for deletion, are painstaking and even more annoying than batch processing. So I urge you not to oppose this process as a matter of "I don't agree with batched deletions", and consider the encyclopaedic worth of the stubs concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have checked each of these. They all have no references and no text and no pictures and are all elementary schools. I think that if the nominator is willing to put in the work to show that each member of the nominated group is essentially similar then we can delete (or keep) as a group. This is the only sensible way to go as new school articles arrive faster than we can consider them here.

If one of these was a secondary school, or one had two refs, or one had some text then different... but. as is. well done nominator .... delete Victuallers (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 36 Surrey, allowing recreation of individual articles if they have adequate content. Noroton (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and update the template that causes these non notable articles to be created. If they are created and are notable then add them to the template as a link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to School District 36 Surrey and update the target correspondingly (without selflinks but a notes column). This takes into account the arguments of all three related AfDs and the initial one as well as the fact that the nomination is sufficiently refined to allow for now a consensual common editorial solution. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecole Riverdale Elementary School[edit]

Renomination of bundle of stub articles about elementary schools expanded from a list, School_District_36_Surrey. Last one failed as a train-wreck. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory, and articles must assert notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the last AfD (from only two weeks ago was closed as a keep not because it was a trainwreck, but because the general idea was that listing a large number of schools at once was a bad idea and they should be handeled separately. What makes you think this second mass nomination (albeit spread out over three different AfD pages) is any different? I am not sure this nomination (in this way) is such a good idea. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Charles Elementary School (Surrey)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Trail Elementary School

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 36 Surrey. RMHED (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No references whatsoever. Doesn't give much more than their existence. Reywas92^Talk 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - schools cannot be considered as a bundle. Each one has a different range of sources and consequently require individual consideration which they won't get here. Lack of references is not a deletion argument; it is an argument to tag and improve. Deletion is for when the sources are not available to stand up notability, not for when they are not included. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who that they can't be bundled? Do you have any specific ones with a consideration? Actually, lack of sources is an arguement. To pass notability and be included in our encyclopedia, each one must have two independent sources, which they don't have. Anyway, there's been a bit of a precedent that in general, elementary schools are not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every school. In my opinion, If you want them to stay, I'd like you to improve them now, and not just tag and add it to the waiting list. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, this is a bundled nomination. There is no policy against these, although frowned upon by some editors. You will note that not all the schools from the original AfD were nominated. The ones which are renominated all share one common characteristic (other than being in School District 36 Surrey) is that elementary schools are not inherently notable; none of them appear notable in any way, and notability is not meaningfully asserted for any of them. Ones which were more than a one-liner have not been nominated, along the lines of the arguments listed here for wholescale deletion of TV and radio mast stubs. Individual AfDs for these, which can and should be grouped for deletion, are painstaking and even more annoying than batch processing. So I urge you not to oppose this process as a matter of "I don't agree with batched deletions", and consider the encyclopaedic worth of the stubs concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 36 Surrey. This would allow recreation of scho9ol articles if enough content can be found.Noroton (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and update the template to not link to these non notable articles. If they are created and are notable then add them to the template as a link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for now until the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL becomes a real one. --Yury Petrachenko (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to School District 36 Surrey and update the target correspondingly (without selflinks but a notes column). This takes into account the arguments of all three related AfDs and the initial one as well as the fact that the nomination is sufficiently refined to allow for now a consensual common editorial solution. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Trail Elementary School[edit]

Kennedy Trail Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
K B Woodward Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Janice Churchill Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Ardiel Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J T Brown Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hyland Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hjorth Road Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hillcrest Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henry Bose Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Harold Bishop Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Halls Prairie Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H T Thrift Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Timbers Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
George Greenaway Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frost Road Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fraser Wood Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Forsyth Road Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fleetwood Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Erma Stephenson Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ellendale Elementary School‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Renomination of bundle of stub articles about elementary schools expanded from a list, School_District_36_Surrey. Last one failed as a train-wreck. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly content-free. Non-notable, asserts no notability and as such are A7-able. CRGreathouse (t | c) 07:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the last AfD (from only two weeks ago was closed as a keep not because it was a trainwreck, but because the general idea was that listing a large number of schools at once was a bad idea and they should be handeled separately. What makes you think this second mass nomination (albeit spread out over three different AfD pages) is any different? I am not sure this nomination (in this way) is such a good idea. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Charles Elementary School (Surrey)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecole Riverdale Elementary School

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spade is a "manual utensil for the purpose of digging or removing earth". ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 36 Surrey. RMHED (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No references whatsoever. Doesn't give much more than their existence. Reywas92^Talk 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is untrue. Did you not evaluate each article? DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of them have a link to the school's homepage, not an independent source. Some have a general link for the history of many Surry schools. This link nicely had all schools merged onto one page. That could be done: merging all articles to the district article. Besides, a merge would be easy as all articles just have one sentence saying that the schools exists and an infobox with a few stats. It is really just a directory of schools. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - schools cannot be considered as a bundle. Each one has a different range of sources and consequently require individual consideration which they won't get here. Lack of references is not a deletion argument; it is an argument to tag and improve. Deletion is for when the sources are not available to stand up notability, not for when they are not included. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who that they can't be bundled? Do you have any specific ones with a consideration? Actually, lack of sources is an arguement. To pass notability and be included in our encyclopedia, each one must have two independent sources, which they don't have. Anyway, there's been a bit of a precedent that in general, elementary schools are not notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every school. In my opinion, If you want them to stay, I'd like you to improve them now, and not just tag and add it to the waiting list. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, this is a bundled nomination. There is no policy against these, although frowned upon by some editors. You will note that not all the schools from the original AfD were nominated. The ones which are renominated all share one common characteristic (other than being in School District 36 Surrey) is that elementary schools are not inherently notable; none of them appear notable in any way, and notability is not meaningfully asserted for any of them. Ones which were more than a one-liner have not been nominated, along the lines of the arguments listed here for wholescale deletion of TV and radio mast stubs. Individual AfDs for these, which can and should be grouped for deletion, are painstaking and even more annoying than batch processing. So I urge you not to oppose this process as a matter of "I don't agree with batched deletions", and consider the encyclopaedic worth of the stubs concerned. —Preceding comment was added at 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to School_District_36_Surrey. Of this list, only two schools have information other than an infobox (Kennedy Trail Elementary School and Harold Bishop Elementary School), neither of which attests to notability. Hal peridol (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect but these are not notable as is and I doubt there are sufficient volunteers to find out if they are. As they are all the same and have no saving graces then delete. Victuallers (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hal peridol's comment at 12:10. Noroton (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and update the template to not link to these non notable articles. If they are created and are notable then add them to the template as a link. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force. No reliable sources to establish notability, but a plausible search item and thus warrants a redirect to the main article. Nothing out of universe or non-original research to establish why this is a character worth writing about; notability of the parent show is simply not enough. {Note: The other ATHF character pages seem to have similar problems as well...) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Shake[edit]

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Then let's delete every single character page and series page out there, while we're at it. Did you ever look at Aqua Teen fansites? Did you even watch the show? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and almost or maybe a speedy keep, as Master Shake is one of the three main characters in a cartoon series that was made into a film and video game, and the advertising of the film attracted national news with the whole moonite sscare fiasco in Boston. Passes any notability requirements with ease. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the three main characters of a notable tv series, movie, game, etc. is by definition inherently notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read over WP:N and WP:FICT, as you're confusing in universe notability and popularity with this site's definition of notability. TTN (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it passes them ovewhelmingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Would you care to read the nutshells and explain how exactly it passes them? TTN (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Doing a google or dogpile search turns up tons of sources on this character, which appears in multiple forms of entertainment media and has been referenced or appeared on other shows as well. They even made toys of the character. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Real world information is required. What you'll find in a search will consist of fan sites, articles on the series itself, and other random junk. Toy are real world information for the series, not the character. TTN (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Toys, TV shows, a movie, a video game, etc. for a main character are all very real world and have achieved national (if not international) attention accordingly. A character that appears in a multi-season show and in various forms is recognizable and worthwhile to have an article on for a non-paper encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Despite how you feel, per WP:N and WP:FICT, this needs a substantial amount of real world information based directly upon the character from reliable sources. The superficial popularity of the character has nothing to do with it. TTN (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't disagree that more sources wouldn't hurt, but it would be ridiculous by our standards to delete an article concerning a main character that has had so many appearances on a national level and who is recognizable to movie goers, game players, TV watchers, toy collectors, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't have any sources that assert notability, so it does not require an article by our standards. What you speak if is superficial popularity, and it does not matter at all. TTN (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The article meets our presentation and organization standards and concerns a character with some level of recognition to a variety of people at least across the U.S.A. It has enough notability to deserve consideration on an encyclopedia with I think (if I'm incorrect with the number, I apologize) 2 million or so articles. Readers are interested in the character and editors are willing to devote time improving an article that can be supported by facts and that does not personally attack anyone. We shouldn't turn away our readers and volunteer editors. Plus, as the game is recent and I believe a new season may be coming, the notability is likely to continue increasing as well and it would be unnecessary to have to start the article over. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no out-of-universe info on the character seems to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion and TenPoundHammer. Does not appear to establish notability. If, in the future, it becomes notable (as asserted by the Grand King) then an article can be written and evaluated at that time. We don't predict notability. Avruch ^Talk 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep revision: Okaythen, he's one of the main characters of a popular cartoon show that is rated in the Neilsens AND has been newsworthy (even though that Mooninite thingy had nothing to do with the character persay). Doc Strange (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is on telly - I have never seen the programm and the fact that I need to read the article to form an opinion makes me think there should be an article. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. And you say a main character of a popular animated series isn't notable? The rescue team will be there soon. ps, this may just be the best AFD ever. ViperSnake151 13:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has fans and is a main character. Vladimir.OShea (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FHM 'interview' [20] with Master Shake. RMHED (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Seems to be another in-universe article full of original research and personal descriptions of the charactor. NO references are listed other than the voice actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aqua Teen Hunger Force#Characters or delete. The show actually is one of my occaisional guilty pleasures, and initially I thought this was an automatic keep. However, the article isn't sourced, and I had a real problem trying to source Shake independantly of ATHF. The version history show that this existed as a redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force from 2003 until January, and there really doesn't seem to be much to say that isn't either OR, or all ready in the main article. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless WP:V and applicable policies can be satisfied. Notability means nothing if the article is comprised entirely of unverifiable original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per Xymmax. I, too, thought this was an automatic keep, but I am persuaded by the delete arguments above. A merge into the characters subsection of the main article seems the best idea. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for Christ's sake, people...THIS IS ALL VERIFIABLE! This is just an agenda by one soreheaded user who is picking one particular article to have a conniption about and an agenda on. I upgrade my vote to Strong Keep, and urge anyone who hasn't already done so to do the same. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you really need to calm down and take a deep breath. This is an AfD, not a witch hunt, and there is no need to take this personally, or to engage in personal attacks upon the editor who proposed the deletion, or the editors who have suggested delete. "Upgrading" your "vote" to "strong keep" really is not going to make any difference in the final decision. We use consensus here, not voting, and it will be the strength of the arguments, based upon policy, that will win the day. Whatever happens, this is not about you, or your feelings, nor is it about TTN or his feelings. It is about notability and verifiability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how this is about anything other than one user's crusade against this article. It is notable, it is verifiable. That alone should be enough for it to stay. This article should not be deleted, and anyone who disagrees is buying into his agenda. I'm sorry, but I don't see how it can go any other way. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think this is verifiable? It is entirely original research. Any sources are in-universe fan sites. Page can be merged to the link below. Reywas92^Talk 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: there was no good reason for this article to be nominated. And I do not see why it should be deleted when it's more than a little obvious that the nomination is under false pretenses. I repeat: TTN has an agenda. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Avruch. It already has Aqua Teen Hunger Force#Characters. Remember, notability is not inherited in this case. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when do cartoon characters need real-world information? They don't actually exist in the real world. Commodorepat (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the hell should it have a real-world encyclopedia article?! (Sorry if I'm too rude). Reywas92^Talk 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin - Absolutely none of the keep votes have anything to do with our policies and guidelines. Most believe that this is notable because the show is notable, which is not the case (WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence). Aatomic1 believes this deserves a spot because he had to read the article. (?) Commodorepat is not up to date with our fiction guidelines. They should not count towards any decision. TTN (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should give admins some credit for being intelligent enough to make up their own minds and myself and others believe Master Shake is notable because he is one of the three main characters in not just a show, but also a movie, toys, video games, guest appearances on other shows, etc. It'd be like saying we think Luke Skywalker is notable just because Star Wars is. Obviously, main characters have achieved their own degree of notability as well, especially when they appear in multiple medias and forms. Plus, our guidelines are edited and change daily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most admins will just declare no consensus right away due to the number of "votes", though this isn't a vote. Anyways, as I just linked up above Notability requires objective evidence. Appearing in those mediums does not assert or establish notability because they are part of the main topic. The character is not what is being singled out. Luke Skywalker is not notable because of the various mediums he has been shown in; he is notable because the character can have extensive coverage in real world sources (as shown by Jabba the Hutt, Palpatine, and Padmé Amidala). TTN (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not proof you have an agenda, TTN, I don't know what is. Here's a hint: just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean that thousands of people haven't either. If I was a mod, I'd close this vote in favor of keeping and have your posting privileges suspended for a week for wasting everyone's time. Then again, that's just me. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had an agenda towards fiction articles, I would argue that three featured articles listed above should be delisted and deleted. Obviously, that is not my opinion. If wanting articles to fit our policies and guidelines counts as an agenda, most people on this site fit that criteria. I really suggest that you use Wikia; it'd be a much better place for you. TTN (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you keep your mouth shut, because there was no reason for you do even bring this to deletion. You didn't send this to deletion because you wanted this to fit policies and criteria. You did it because you were sore that your edits got reverted. That's called an agenda, and you are guilty as charged. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to caution you about your attitude, and suggest that you be civil in AfD discussions. Telling another user to keep his or mouth shut is certainly not being civil. I cautioned you above about stopping, taking a deep breath, and trying to remember that this is not a personal attack upon you, nor should you make personal attacks upon the editor who made the AfD request. Accusing other users of having agendas and threatening them with what you would do if you were a "mod" are certainly signs of bad faith on your part. You need to calm down. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I may have been a little quick in assuming his motives, but I still fail to see how it isn't an agenda. And I don't see how I can't tell him to be quiet when he tells me, not in so many words, to leave the Wiki. That was uncalled for. As to why I've voted to keep this article, my reasons are simple: 1) that it is verifiable (if one looks at the websites and watches the episodes, they can observe Master Shake's characteristics and prove once and for all that what is said is true); 2) that enough exists about the character to warrant Master Shake having his own page (don't misinterpret that as "well, then every character should-", as not every character in every series is worthy of its own page and that there are other pages more worthy of an AfD nod); 3) that it's a useful page for anyone who wants to learn more about the character (much more than a blurb on the character page could do justice), fans and non-fans alike; and 4) that the page is encyclopedic in content. A fifth reason was that I really believe that this is a bad faith AfD nod, and I don't believe that the page should be deleted as a result of one person's agenda. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus for merging. Qst 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Ormsby-Gore[edit]

A well written article who's subject fails WP:BIO. Throughout the article, and the references, the subject is refered to as daughter/sister/lover of. There is no indication of notability of her own and everything else falls foul of notability is not inherited. This extends to her obit which is titled 'Peer's sister 'overdosed on heroin' Nuttah68 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the clout of the sources. I don't see how this can be put into the Eric Clapton article without mangling it. Perhaps it can be merged to the article on her parents. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to her father's article. Half the article is about Clapton, half the article is half about other people in her life. Trim all that (Wm. the Conqueror? Who the hell cares?), trim the bit about their long-term live-in relationship, and merge that into Clapton's article which right now doesn't mention her at all (which seems quite wrong, if she was part of his heroin years). --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her father's article (which I've already done) and to Clapton's. I can't see how to include it in the latter without screwing up the flow, but it should be in there somehow. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The peerage (not to mention royal bloodlines) is one of those odd cases where notability is hereditary (hence Time thinking it worth reporting that she was going to be attending an American school at age 15 ... ), but quite apart from that she was, as an "aristocratic hippy", a notable figure of 60s "Swinging London". --Paularblaster (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Also: meets the WP:N basic presumption: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should be tagged for notability rather than for deletion.[reply]
Keep - I don't see any difficulty with notability: she was famous just for being famous (like a great many other people). As Paularblaster points out, there is no difficulty with sources. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HeartofaDog. Clearly meets WP:BIO, with plenty of sources. Her life may have been one of meaningless selebrity -through-association-with-celebrities, but she stills meets WP:BIO, and although Paularblaster is wrong to say that notability is hereditary, the sources are clear that she did attract substantial media coverage as an "aristocratic hippy" in 60s "Swinging London". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of royals and peers notability clearly is hereditary (and often nothing but), simply because power, position and possessions are. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per plenty of reliable sources, and the fact that one can be notable only for being famous. (See Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie.) Mr Which ^??? 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StudioBard[edit]

I will admit that I was a bit ("a bit" meaning "WAY") to premature to add a speedy tag to this article, almost immediately when it was created. However, at that time it did not assert importance, and now it kind of does. Google search brings up 140 results, however majority are unrelated or are from directory websites, neither of those support any notability. Seems to just be a basic list, comprised of original research, or conflict of interest, from the single-purpose account. Sure, the studio has done work for notable shows, but I don't believe the stuido itself is notable. Given that the article does not supply, and I cannot find any secondary, reliable sources, I do not believe this article meets WP:CORP. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the prodded @ Large Films. Katr67 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call, but I'm going to go Delete per Rjd0060. The studio is not notable in and of itself, despite work on other notable subjects. Similar to participants in the creation of other things that are notable - studios, artists, technicians etc. on blockbuster movies don't earn individual articles. Avruch ^Talk 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the subject is proven. The studio is the only one in the area to have been recognized with an Academy Award nomination, has been involved in countless projects throughout the industry. StudioBard is known and respected throughout the region. They are responsible for work Nationally as well... at places like the International Tennis hall of Fame, the Seattle Museum of Flight and the Grand Canyon. and it seems that the decision as to the notability of a company should be determined by those in the industry, whose opinion and influence pertain to the subject at hand. Should someone who doesn't watch Star Trek decide whether 'Amok Time' is a notable episode? Does someone who has never played or watched baseball in Houston have the right to determine if the Crawford boxes are notable? There are countless examples in this ever-expanding volume of all human knowledge that support it's inclusion. Who on the playground gets to decide if the kid is cool enough for the monkey bars? Shouldn't everyone be allowed to try, to see if they can hang? Obviously, if the minimum criteria are met for inclusion, the subject should be included. The whole concept is to cover anything appropriate, relying on those who care about the subject to act as the custodian of knowledge. If someone goes to Wikipedia for information, they expect that the best current information is provided on a given subject, and they do not expect to discover that an article has been deleted because a few people who roam around policing articles about which they have no knowledge decided that the subject wasn't 'notable.' Let time decide. wait and see how much an article can grow over a year or so of interested visitors... if it doesn't... then consider an article of deletion, but until then... leave it alone. Studiomanager (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Studiomanager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment And they are the world's greatest too, right? Doesn't matter how much you say an entity is this that or the other thing, per Notability guidelines (see WP:CORP) the notability needs to be proven through Wikipedia determined reliable sources. For instance to prove the Academy Award a link to where they list it as a winner is needed (or coverage in the news media), or other coverage such as in Variety, The Oregonian, Portland Business Journal, The New York Times, USA TODAY, industry magazines, the AP, Willamette Week, etc. Notice I am not saying they are or are not notable. But the article does no establish that, and until it does, it is subject to deletion. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I have included the Wikipedia determined reliable sources now. I appreciate your input and welcome additional advice. Studiomanager (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those links are reliable. However, the problem is they do not mention StudioBard, thus they do not provide substantial coverage as needed per WP:CORP/WP:NOTE. Simply working on something notable does not transfer notability, unless those efforts helped make them notable, in which case they would be mentioned. For instance with the Academy Award the directors were listed, so that would help with those people's notability. Substantial coverage of StudioBard in a reliable source would be something like an article on StudioBard in Variety. I just checked the Portland Business Journal which almost always has something for a Portland based company/enity, and there were zero results. The other thing is after only two weeks this Wikipedia article is already the number three item on a Google search for the studio, with less than 150 results overall. Unless you can dig up some substantial coverage, this fails notability guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while the studio seems to have done some notable work, the studio isn't notable. Google results StudioBard Portland best award: 42 hits, most of which are its projects. Perhaps this would be a good basis for a broader article like Recording and soundstage industry in Portland, Oregon? —EncMstr 00:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I visited six of the "reliable links", as claimed by the author, and found no mention of StudioBard in any. A read through Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability would help clarify what we're looking for; in any case, I don't see evidence of notability. The article is pretty clearly created as a self-promotion, since the author's work consists of this article and adding links to it on other pages - there's a clear conflict of interest here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darknut[edit]

The article has no notablility or referencing to speak of. It is a minor recurring enemy of the Legend of Zelda series, and the article functions as an in-universe regurgitation of plot points from the various Zelda game article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Keese rationale. JuJube (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable in the real world. Is there a Zelda wiki that could take this article, as it would be very appropriate for it. - Koweja (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied and Delete moved to the Encyclopedia Gamia edit the article here --08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs california (talk • contribs)
Delete or merge the intro back into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. Fully agree with nom's reasoning. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. jj137 (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT for fictional characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any good info into Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series, it's definitely notable, it's appeared in almost every game! Knowitall (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Umbrella Records[edit]

Non-notable organisation Lugnuts (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable label, possible spam page, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't speedy - Notability is asserted in the article (20 national releases), so the merits of the article need to be discussed here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable label, none of the acts appear to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, also as failing WP:MUSIC - barriers to entry are falling, and anyone can start a record label these days. None of the bands listed appear to be notable, 101 Ghits, most of which Myspace or blog entries - and none of the bands signed have wikipedia article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Rumney[edit]

Biographical puff piece, with the claim to notability of running a minor charity. There are on the order of one million charities in the US, each of which no doubt has somebody running it. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asserts notability of the charity, not him, and notability is not inherited. Charity probably would fail WP:ORG. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established, and nothing to demonstrate he is known outside Huntsville, Alabama (pop 168,000). Ohconfucius (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. --Strothra (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Stevens[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable porn actress. I can't find any reliable non-trivial coverage through Google (i.e. just IMDB, IAFD, which are directories) - all I can find is visual proof through Google Image Search that she does indeed have a speciality for "anal gaping", which is not a claim to notability.

As a side note, I've nominated quite a few porn actress articles for deletion just now because I honestly can't see how any of them pass WP:BIO. I haven't nominated some of the older actresses born in the '60s simply because media coverage would be more likely to exist offline if it did. But that's just me giving them the benefit of the doubt and I think they should be AfDed later.

I hadn't heard of any of these porn actresses until I looked at the userpage of User:Epbr123, in which they are in a section for possible AfDs.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; looked for non-trivial coverage, couldn't find any. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This pornstar has low popularity and its popularity is also decreasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.228.168 (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AnonEMouse. Fails [[[WP:BIO]]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete the article is lacking in reliable secondary sources and the article doesn't actually provide any evidence of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciera Sage[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable porn actress, no reliable sources, just spam and pornography through Google. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; looked for additional non-trivial coverage, couldn't find any. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Not sourced - gaining fame ≠ notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Jaye[edit]

Nothing to suggest that this porn actress is notable or passes WP:BIO, lacks reliable sources or any independent coverage that I can see. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't consider this person to be notable, and I don't believe that Wikipedia does either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and strong keep for everything else that is not either spam or a fake entry. Why do you want to delete this entry? What do you gain from that? This article does not hurt you, or does it? I see a point in deleting spam and fake storys. The reason why I reached this page is because I looked up 'Leah Jaye' at wikipedia, so it serves a purpose for me (A stub is better than nothing), needless to say that I considere it notable. To put it the other way around: People who do not consider it notable do not look it up in the first place (and so they do not read it, and so they do not consider it non-notable). Think about what the actual strength of Wikipedia is. Why is Wikipedia not just another 'Encyclopædia Britannica' wanabee? Isn't it Inclusionism that makes Wikipedia superior? Is it?! --84.57.83.188 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read up on some of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS, then you might understand why this is probably going to be deleted.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as suggested. I advise against any merge as this appears to be unsourced original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machi Kuragi[edit]

Character lacks real world notability, no real world context is or can be established, no reliable secondary sources to meet WP:FICT, just a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fruits Basket, would probably be the best idea, interested editors merging relevant info. Hiding T 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Hiding T 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fruits Basket or merge with a list that covers the characters of the manga. —Mirlen 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn many improvements made. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Burke Jr.[edit]

Delete Clearly not notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Strothra (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nomination Withdrawn per Paularblaster's fine work. --Strothra (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, scour of Google Books indicates no notability other than as Edmund's son. (Note, he isn't the Friends character either.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that he's confirmed as an MP. Didn't find that! --Dhartung | Talk 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Edmund Burke, there is some interesting material here that could be incorporated into the father's article. Anarchia (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably notable, as the article of Edmund Burke in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that he succeeded to his father's seat in parliament, which is accepted in WP as notability. The WP article is of poor quality, neither giving the obvious references nor showing the notability, as is frequently the case for article put in with a COI-- It seems we get about 2/3 of the puffery and 1/3 inadequacy. COI is a reason to check for both. I've added the information to the article. Google Scholar is not the total sum of human knowledge--professionally prepared resources are not yet superseded. . DGG (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he did a couple of minorly notable things, as well as being an MP, and I've just spent my evening wikifying the entry (links from lists of MPs, etc.). --Paularblaster (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an MP, clearly meets WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyvio. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brightwood, Indianapolis[edit]

Either original research or a copyright violation from http://www.indyindiana.com/indianapolis_neighborhoods.htm. Also, not particularly notable. Pilotbob (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. The neighbourhood is certainly notable enough for an article and a good one could be written using available sources. This article is however unquestionably a copyvio and has now been tagged as such. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Wafulz as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nygro the darksican[edit]

I'm having an extremely hard time verifying the material here. I can't find any results for this artist, or any of his collaborations, online under any of his names. Can't find albums, can't find singles, can't find anything. Material is sourced to the Black Rock Gazette in February 1996, and while their archives only run to 1998, their majority of material is published in April, August, or September. Assuming the sources are real, then there's the issue of musical notability - if an artist completely disappears from the face of the earth (ie has no non-trivial sourcing), then I don't think notability is established. Wafulz (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

While recording his second album, Niggie was heavily involved in the East Coast-West Coast hip hop feud dominating the scene at the time. On January 20, 1999, he was killed by an unknown assailant in a drive-by shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada.[3]
3^ Shockley, Donald, Reno Evening Gazette, February 1996

This feels extremely bogus.-Wafulz (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax. DS (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-pong[edit]

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - X-Pong is in the same vein as Beer Pong and Flip Cup, both drinking games invented at universities with Wikipedia pages. The game Humans vs. Zombies was invented at a university and has less history than X-Pong. The game has been played all over the country and is far from nonsense. Keeping this Wikipedia page will foster knowledge of the game for anyone interested, thereby furthering Wikipedia as a source of public information. Jcheifet (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The game is legitimite. I've seen it played in many different settings, its not just a game between a group of friends. It has a serious history and clearly defined rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.31.94 (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a legitimate game! Much in the same respects of a "legitimate" drinking game like Beer Pong. It has no small following, is played by many people at many schools (PSU, Pitt, U Akron, Kent State just to name a few) and has clearly written and legitimate rules. Must keep as outside sources are found and will grow with exposure on site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.228.183 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom --Dawn bard (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not quite patent nonsense, but it was certainly seen brushing up against patent nonsense at the mall. SparsityProblem (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Snigbrook (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Per nom, just read the article and it says in the article that it was made up in school. Tiptoety (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - x-pong is a legitimate game, i have played it. it has a history, a following, and clearly outlined rules. it even has its own website which i have visited before. its been up for at least a few months i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.152.175 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a local game, invented at a university. No relevance. --ChrisHH-de (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable game invented by someone one day. No encyclopaedic value. Ben W Bell talk 14:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is by far the most addicting collegiate drinking game ever invented. There is a website completely dedicated to its roots and existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomklingebiel (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - my buddies and i used to play x-pong all the time at syracuse 3 or 4 years ago, although with slightly different rules. just yesterday we were talking about it and i searched wiki to explain the game to my friend, and found this article. then i see people want it deleted, which i dont understand. as user Jcheifet said above, this article fosters knowledge of the game, which as i said is a real game. if i had to guess i would've said its been around for longer than 6 years, but it's interesting to see the actual history of x-pong. just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it's not a real game. the article says it has been played at many universities, yet it didn't list syracuse. imagine how many other colleges it is played at that we don't even know about! it deserves an article as much as any other drinking game. i think we may play this weekend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.34.51 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No one is doubting the "realness" of the game. However, we do doubt the notability of it, as no reliable third party sources have written about the topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Michael Burke[edit]

Delete Seems like a vanity article. Non notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Simple resume with very little citation. Strothra (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV per WP:SOAP. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be part of an attempt to put a family tree on wikipedia, irrespective of the notability of the individual members. Anarchia (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:COPY and WP:OR; WP:BLP requires at least some WP:RS, not a cut-and-paste CV. No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a job-posting site Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was involved in the ABA at the time, and I've never heard of him. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability.Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Oberoi[edit]

No reliable sources that can show notability, or verifiability Martijn Hoekstra 23:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I added a reference, so it can be done. However, as I know nothing about Bollywood, I admit my opinion may not be worth much. Anyway, I have nothing against keeping this, though, as it was only created 30 minutes ago. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO, notability does not come with what is going to happen in the future, or what someone has not done yet. Though it does look like with expansion this will meet requirements, and i would change my vote to keep. Tiptoety 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With improvements, this article will be just fine. Captain panda 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability as a model is not asserted in the article, and the subject's acting career has not yet begun. The reference added after nomination contains an incidental mention of the subject and, therefore, is insufficient as a secondary reliable source in support of notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per extensive coverage in reliable sources over several years raised in this debate. Davewild (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Lanner[edit]

This is not an article. It is yellow journalism and muckraking at its worst. This rabbi is not notable in and of himself. Unfortunately, there has been a pattern recently creating articles about disgraced Orthodox rabbis, (Mordecai Tendler, Mordechai Gafni, Aron Tendler) that focus exclusively on their sexual failings when these rabbis had no significant notabilty as rabbis prior to that. The present article only deals with sexual allegations and faults. Wikipedia WP:BLP is not about that. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of sex allegations. The intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT#ANARCHY (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an article, it is a slander piece. Is the most notable thing reported on this man's life the alleged abuse? Sfacets 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is not simply alleged abuse. He was tried and convicted. Furthermore, the matter was enormously important within the community of which he was a prominent member. There are probably thousands of articles about people whose most notable achievement was criminal. There is no slander. Every assertion is sourced and could be sourced with multiple citations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Urr Will, read carefully, he was not convicted for every last claim that was made in yellow journalism allegations against him. He was not even sentenced for anything major. It was not rape and it was not sodomy. Two girls testified that he brushed against their breasts and that he may have groped their breasts. People do this to their pets all the time! But I do not wish to make excuses for him or anyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. Here was a non-notable rabbi, who after years of being a charismatic youth leader, with lots of groupies after him, who went to jail for minor acts. For this he deserved seven years in jail? Noone expected such a high sentence and it made no sense. This is not the Boston Strangler and you are not the Grand Inquisitor. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't our job to judge the fairness of the criminal sentence. If the sentence was unjust that doesn't reduce the notability of the subject. The only task in this AfD is to decide whether the subject of the article has met the standards of notability as suggested in WP:NOTABILITY. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This subject easily meets that standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea, I'm sure that's all you had in mind. IZAK (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the attack article appear to have been created by User:Lobojo, except for this one, created by User:Will Beback. Lobojo's edits appear to be a pattern of attacks against these rabbis. Sfacets 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is obvious that this aticle was intended as an attack article from the beginning - and that undue weight is given to the accusations/convictions. Evidence of this is the first edit made to the article which already contained exclusive information on the criminal procedings, and nothing on the biography of the subject. The article is about the subject, not his legal problems. Sfacets 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? He is notable for his criminal behavior and for the community's reaction to it (note, "his legal problems" seems a very roundabout way to refer to these issues — the legal problems are a result of the behavior, not the behavior itself). What do you think the article should describe, if not the things he is notable for? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is yet another of a series of well-sourced and thoroughly-documented articles that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. While improvements are always possible, the article presents all details factually and neutrally, using independent sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability criteria. Dchall1 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modification. Like it or not, the article meets policy criteria for WP:BIO and WP:RS. It makes a clear notability claim and backs it up. However, I agree with nominator that the article should focus on encyclopedic aspects and should not gratuitously describe e.g. specific sex acts in detail. WP:NOT#NEWS makes clear that Wikipedia is intended to present substantive information, not tabloid journalism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no strong opinion on this article, but I'm highly unconvinced by the nominator's reasoning. If someone is notable as a sex criminal, and also happens to be a rabbi, why must they be notable as a rabbi and their rabbinical achievements detailed in order to keep the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The abuse is, according to the article, not 'alleged' but proven, i.e. he has been convicted and sentenced to prison. I don't think all convicted criminals are notable, but the coverage of this incident combined with his position in the community and the publicity of sexual abuse cases against clergy make this particular criminal notable. Avruch ^Talk 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep;. There are literally hundreds of news reports over the last seven years about this individual, including an entire investigative series in a major Jewish news weekly. It is not the case of a one-time event that was briefly in the news. The matter was described as "well-publicized" and a "watershed" event that had a major effect on the large organization of which the subject was an excutive. Many individuals become notable due to their crimes. WP has dozens of articles on Catholic priests who achieved notoriety simply due to their molestation convictions, not to mention numerous others who become famous for a single action. As the original creator, I resent the accusation that "the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person..." I had no such intent. In fact, more there were requests for this article to exist dating back at least to May. I think the article is entirely neutral. I've sought more information on his life, such as his education or birthdate, but haven't yet read all of the articles on him to locate that info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lanner case not only stirred a rare public airing of the issue in the Jewish community, it also provoked intense debate in the community because Lanner allegedly abused scores of teenagers over 30 years....As public reaction swelled, the OU appointed the NCSY Special Commission on the Lanner case. In December 2000, the panel released part of a scathing 332-page report blaming OU leaders for ignoring reports of Lanner’s abuse and urging major organizational reforms....the NCSY has instituted mandatory sensitivity training for all teen advisers, has created "ombudsmen" to hear complaints and has put in place formal procedures regarding sexual misconduct.[21] That shows the importance of the subject. I also see that Wikipedia has been criticized for not mentioning the case.[22] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lanner was a nobody till two high school girls testified that he brushed against their breasts as their principal. All the other stuff are allegations not proven in a court of law, and Wikipedia should not be the place that becomes a holier-than-thou "Über-supreme court" that can over-rule any human being's right to fairness. This is not an article, it is a lynching. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Lanner became notable when he was the executive of a large youth organization and a major Jewish news weekly ran an series of articles alleging serious child abuse by him over a 30-year period. He became even more notable when the organization he was involved with conducted a major investigation followed by a second major report. Here is more evidence of the importance of the subject within his former organization:
      - Weinreb, a rabbi and psychotherapist, began at the O.U. in 2002 and was looked to as a calming figure after the organization was rocked by a scandal involving Baruch Lanner, its former youth division director. Lanner resigned in 2000, in response to a report in the New York Jewish Week alleging that he had abused 4 teenagers over several decades and that O.U. officials had covered up his transgressions. Eventually he was convicted of abusing two teenage girls, and the O.U.'s executive vice president, Rabbi Raphael Butler, resigned, paving the way for Weinreb. Dr. Mandell Ganchrow, who was serving as president of the O.U. at the time that the Lanner scandal erupted, said the new search indicates that Weinreb had finished his task of reforming the organization. "The post-Lanner era is over," said Ganchrow, who served as the O.U.'s president from 1994 to 2000. "The time to heal for the O.U. required the six or seven years that it took. It was done beautifully under a very skillful individual. Now is the time to conquer the next series of problems that faces the Jewish community." "O.U. Leader Being Pushed Out" Nathaniel Popper. Forward. New York, N.Y.: Jan 12, 2007. Vol. 110, Iss. 31636; pg. A10, 1 pgs
    - But for this discussion it really doesn't matter why someone becomes notable, just that they are. This person has been the subject of at least a hundred news articles and is mentioned in probably a few hundred more. As for neutrality, there is nothing in this article that hasn't already been printed in the most respectable Jewish news sources. What matieral in the article is unfair or non-neutral? Also, you are using very emotional language, such as "lynching" and "tar and feather". That's hyperbolic and doesn't lead to calm discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm very calm actually. Tell me, how come you only decided to create this article now? Ever heard of this dude Lanner before? IZAK (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and I can assure you too, since I am very familiar with who he worked for, that he was nothing more than a glorified cheerleader, he wasn't an "executive" of anything to write home about. Not one of those allegations about NCSY was proven in a court of law despite all the resignations and broo-ha-ha. He went to jail due to what some of his students said from the school where he was a principal, nothing to do with the youth organization. The Jewish Week created such a stink about it, but their allegations never went to court and were never proven. You would make a poor attorney. You seem to be enjoying looking for mud, try looking for better stuff instead. As they say, "get a life"... IZAK (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - IZAK, the actual language from the NYT article on Lanner's conviction is "Two graduates of the school testified at his two-week trial that when they were 16-year-old students there Mr. Lanner touched their breasts, groped them and pressured them with veiled sexual overtures." Your comment's summary uses much weaker language, saying only that "he brushed against their breasts" and calling the victims, now women, "girls". I don't know your actual intent in phrasing it this way but what it comes across as is disingenuously trying to pretend that a serious crime didn't occur when the court says it did. Please adopt a more neutral encyclopedic attitude, in which we present what's known about a story without trying to spin it one way or another. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lanner affair was very notable. It affected a large number of people, and continues to have repercussions on NCSY and the Modern Orthodox world. IZAK wants to whitewash this whole affair. And, predictably, he has begin to accuse those who disagree with him of all kinds of bad motives. That's how he gets out of having to argue the issues. The issues, however, are obvious: The Lanner affair continues to reverberate years and years later. There is no question about its notability. --Meshulam (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He was indeed a notable the leader on NCSY and one of the biggest talmidim od JB solovitchick his sexual indecency allegations should not be a reson wikipedia should become a Jewish Censership tool.--יודל (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Buddy, they weren't allegations. They were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree that he is notable... for the sole reason that he took advantage of his position, and that the response to his abuse on the part of his cronies (in the OU, NCSY, etc.) was so pitiful.--Meshulam (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News story rather than a notable person. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not need an article on every minor sex offender. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources for the article are all news from the 2000–2002 period, but evidence of its subject's notability can also be found in the scholarly and popular literatures. Examples: How to Keep Your Children Safe: A Guide for Parents by Yvonne Marie Vissing, UPNE 2007, p.61 has a section about clergy, saying that abuse of this type spans multiple religions, citing Lanner as one of two Jewish examples, and stating that Lanner "abused teenagers in his charge over the course of twenty years". Letters to a Young Journalist, by Samuel G. Freedman, Basic Books, 2006, describes in detail (pp. 38-39) Gary Rosenblatt's efforts in documenting this case; it states the period of time over which the abuse happened as thirty years and writes "This was not an investigation built on the rickety stilts of anonymous sources. Scrupulously, Gary required every victim he quoted to speak by name, on the record." It goes on to describe the Orthodox establishment's attempts to whitewash the problem. Pava, Moses L. (2002), "The Path of Moral Growth", Journal of Business Ethics, 38: 43–54, doi:10.1023/A:1015768912619 in a paper on a topic that is only loosely related nevertheless uses the Lanner case as an example. In a 2004 news story, the OU president in his autobiography maintains his ignorance of the situation at the time. This type of source attests to the significance and ongoing notability of the case, I think — it appears much more than a flash-in-the-pan news item about a minor sex offender. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As David E shows in his customary expert fashion, the notability is attested by religious and secular news sources over many years, academic sources, and popular books. (He was arguably notable otherwise, even without this: I do not thing he could possibly be described as minor clergy. the very people who want to delete the article say that he had "years of being a charismatic youth leader". DGG (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and well-sourced, sadly. --MPerel 07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncomfortable reading, but his case seems to have sent shockwaves through a large religious organisation. Needs very careful monitoring for WP:BLP issues, but keepable from a notability perspective. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet and sour calamari[edit]

Dish is not notable. Article was created by same editor that created article for Chef Chris Albano (which was deleted) and Artichoke Crepe which is up for AFD. All three articles seem to be creatd to promote Chris Albano, who is currently a non-notable chef. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete Tis a quandary for this one, I honestly would call this a variation on Sweet and Sour pork and chicken. I am leaning on a merge with one of those articles, probably Sweet and Sour Chicken since that is also an Chinese-American Cuisine dish. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - No insult intended, but there could be a perceived COI here in that a Chef is nominating another Chef. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is a conflict of interest, it is a statement of facts for the nomination, not my personal opinion of whether I like the dish or not. If I put up my version of other dishes that are not notable I would expect them to be deleted as well (I work on established cuisines mostly though) As a chef, if this is conflict of interest, then working on any food article would be a conflict of interest.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable dish, seemingly existing to promote a chef. Also written in a very non-encyclopaedic style (though that could be fixed if kept) and more as a newspaper story. "Across the country"? What country? Ben W Bell talk 14:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be the basis of sweet and sour cuisine or sweet and sour pork derivatives 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was complete promotion, the author has never done anything that wasn't about Albano, and Albano is not notable. --Thespian (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Newberry[edit]

An unreferenced article on a poet. Fails WP:BIO. Numerous appearences in little mags, but books are self-published. The creation of Briannewberry (talk · contribs), a single purpose acount. Very likely a WP:COI. Victoriagirl (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no notability asserted whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NN. --DAJF (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NN. jj137 (Talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable poet. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:SPS. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a lovely person, but no evidence of the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO. --12:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats vocabulary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefly slang words and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blade: Dictionary. Otto4711 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang/malapropisms/whatever. The kids in Rugrats do use a lot of malapropisms, but to make a list of them is pure fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Possibly own research. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No way to verify, per nom. Tiptoety (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We no do slang wiki-guide. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How on earth did this survive the first nom? •97198 talk 10:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Stand Recordings[edit]

Previously VfD kept, just about. I don't think it meets our new definitions at WP:MUSIC! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references whatsoever for over a year, ostensibly a record label but on closer inspection is merely an mp3 hosting site, whose most important patron is, allegedly, Wesley Crusher from Star Trek. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lock Phasers! Delete. I never liked Crusher anyway. This is non-notable and its length of time here suggests there is nothing else to bring to the table in its behalf. JodyB_talk 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. jj137 (Talk) 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all sorts of notability criteria. Really just an mp3 hosting site for Crusher. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that it's notable. Some other open source record labels have achieved notability. This one attracted the attention of Wil Wheaton and his tremendous blog following (hey, it was on Boing Boing first here), but has no other apparent claim to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thanks for bringing the article to my attention, Wikipedia editors (I originally created it, heh). Perhaps an archive listing on 'online record labels' would be fine. Dislike of Wil Wheaton shouldn't be a reason to automatically mark for deletion ; though I doubt this is how anyone actually feels. Wikipedia isn't (, in theory,) an arena to grind axes. Geoff43230 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deleted as "Utterly unsourced / POV-laden / massive BLP nightmare" - Alison ^❤ 07:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Watson[edit]

Suspected victim of a murder, recently reported in major news networks in the USA. But is this notable right now? Probably not. Jmlk 1 7 01:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I almost speedied this because of violations of BLP (the husband) and I may still because once you subtract the accusations there is little substance for an article. Pigman^what?/trail 02:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, this article looks like a way of publishing unfactual information about the husband's culpability or actions related to her death. I'm not judging one way or another about his guilt or innocence, just that the sources supplied don't do so either, meaning the accusations are rumour/innuendo, not definitive fact. Pigman^what?/trail 02:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the news. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as news. JJL (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Anthøny 21:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Skoropadska[edit]

Delete - no reliable sources establish that this person passes WP:BIO Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pretender to a throne that never existed (it was an elected position) 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Skoropadskie and Pavlo Skoropadskyi This person is clearly a member of the Ukraine nobility and the daughter of someone who became leader of Ukraine and intended to make the job hereditary. There's apparently some difference of opinion as to whether she is truly a pretender to the "throne"; although that's the story told in standard articles about her father (like this one), according to this article about her nephew, who reportedly is interested in the hetman position, she "refused to have anything to do with the succession issue, announcing that she wanted to stay out of politics." She's written at least one book (a biography of her father) and she's played a role in establishing at least one museum in post-Soviet Ukraine, according to http://who-is-who.com.ua/bookmaket/ukrtour2007/33/198.html , and she cut the ribbon on another one (according to http://who-is-who.com.ua/bookmaket/ukrtour2007/33/195.html ). She isn't sufficiently notable for her own article, but she's part of a story that does need to be here. --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would this not better be tagged for verification or notability than for deletion? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article is one line long. Her entry on the family page is almost as long as this article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The article text may be just one line long, but the infobox contains a photo and several items of information that aren't in the text. This is the material that could be merged into another article. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pavlo Skoropadskyi, per Orlady's arguments. PKT 02:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 Texas A&M Aggies men's basketball team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2006-07 Texas A&M Aggies men's basketball team

An article on a basketball team's season. Claims notability by "being the best season for the school ever", but that alone doesn't qualify as notable. Didn't win a national championship, nor make any major headway in the news. Jmlk 1 7 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a ton of these seasonal sports articles. This team seems to be in the top 10 in the country for one thing, although I'm not sure how important that is. I say keep and cleanup. jj137 (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Mayalld (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Refer to Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. Also it is notable, multiple outlaying sources such as ESPN.com and CBSsportsline.comVladimir.OShea (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First you say refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF from WP:AADD to the first user, and here you make an argument that is clearly against WP:JNN, which is also from WP:AADD. Interesting. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the most sucessful season the program has ever had as well as advancing the program to a recognized status. I agree with the clean-up, but it has a reference and there is no original research. Vladimir.OShea (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep while I disagree with all college basketball teams seasons having articles, this one claims notabilty by heading to the Sweet 16. Just enough for me This is a Secret ^account 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia, to my knowledge, doesn't have any minimum requirement guidelines on what would be classified as a notable season/team. There are a couple of options we can take: a.) allow anyone with a passion to write these articles for their favorite team to do so without discrimination, or b.) only allow articles for those which meet some minimum guideline (unless otherwise notable). Based on what I have seen it appears that Wikipedia tends to lean to the first option more than not—even the 0-10 Dolphins and perennially losing baseball teams who can't win 70 games (won't name any names) have articles. (And obviously I don't believe being a so-called "professional" team makes them any more notable than your average college team.) If someone has a desire to document the history of college teams season-by-season, I say let them. —Mike 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the absence of specific guidelines on sports team, surely WP:ORG applies Mayalld (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a significant contributor to another one of these articles. These NCAA teams receive significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the teams, especially on a game-by-game basis, thus meeting the notability guideline. I'm willing to pull up these multiple sources per request. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bizSmart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This service of CIBC does not meet the notability criteria. It has not received significant coverage, and is a product of an organization (see: WP:PRODUCT). Furthermore, this service is no longer offered, and has left little impact on the banking compunity. Lex Kitten (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While they may not be in business anymore, BizSmart was very notable. Reasons for nomination are wrong. J (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can find no evidence of BizSmart being notable. The only articles I see are listing it's creation (in typical press-release style) or listing it's closure. I don't see how it is notable. If you think it deserves to stay, perhaps it could be merged into the CIBC article? Lex Kitten (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe they used to be notable, but there is no notability asserted. jj137 (Talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least an article like mbanx has a source indicating that it was North America's first virtual bank -- thus confering notability. There is nothing in this bizSmart article to suggest that the article subject was anything but an unsuccessful also-ran. If, as claimed above, bizSmart "was very notable", we need to see something that shows it. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania in fiction[edit]

Unsourced trivial information. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Relevant contents should be in the Transylvania article. This attitude of "move a long section to a new article to clear the clutter" needs to be stopped. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per precedent of "in popular culture/fiction" articles of this ilk. List is nothing but trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't Transylvania an indelible part of horror fiction, particularily of the Golden Age of Hollywood? Most people outside the area know it primarily for that, which is certainly noteworthy. At the same time the matter is distinct from the demographics, geography, politics, etc. etc. of the area itself. --23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizor (talk • contribs)

Certainly is, but this isn't an article about the fictional (as opposed to real) Transylvania, it's just a list of fun stuff that uses the fictional Transylvania as a setting or theme. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fun stuff, but no encyclopedic value. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it addresses a notable plot point in various works of fiction, as suggested above by Kizor. Thanks to the whole vampire legends, Transylvania has served as the setting of many of film, video game, or novel and so I think a good article could be written about this phenomenon and how it may accurately or inaccurately reflect the real location. I feel strongly that these "in fiction" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. In this particularly case, it concerns a topic of interest to our readers and editors and should be kept and improved with additional sources. We clearly are shifting in a keep or no consensus over these types of articles lately anyway: [23] and [24]. I do think the article should and could be improved, however. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Transylvania has been used for _many_ years as a setting for vampire, werewolf, and other monster-related fiction, to the extent that many in the West know of it only through such works. This phenomenon is pretty separate from the real Transylvania as a concept, and it would also be just too long to put in the article on Transylvania, which is up to 29K. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could not at first see why this should possibly have been nominated. The country in which notable fiction is set for rather obvious reasons, would seem clearly of encyclopedic interest. It's not as if all these works just accidentally happened to pick the same place off a map at random. It's not as if nobody has every discussed the matter either, or correlated it with some aspects of actual history. But I may have figured it out, for it may be a signal that all the potentially questionable cultural influence and popular culture articles have been already eliminated. DGG (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't particularly think compendia of popular trivia are encyclopedic or belong on Wikipedia at all, but they're a fact of wiki-life and it's going to take more vigilance than we can summon up to get rid of them all. That said, the "Transylvania in fiction" list is most likely keeping a good number of people from cluttering up the "Transylvania" article (which, we sometimes need to be reminded, concerns a real place with a long history that has very, very little to do with vampires, werewolves, and the other grotesques people in the Anglophone world constantly insist on shackling it with) with irrelevant and often insulting contributions. "Transylvania in fiction"'s examples have little or nothing to do with the real Transylvania; if we delete the list, massive bloating of the real "Transylvania" article will result, with frustrating results for well-meaning horror fans (who will see their contributions mercilessly reverted out of existence) and nightmarish, highly distracting consequences for serious devotees of Transylvanian cultures trying to improve the "Transylvania" article. Hubacelgrand (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of times a thing is mentioned in TV, movies, and record albums do not belong in an encyclopedia. Such mentions are not ipso facto notable even if the subject being mentioned is itself notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not - no position on that - but this is the closest thing we have and the only one with a decent chance of improving into what you wish to see. With that and my previous comment in mind, I'm going to say keep. --Kizor (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mythical image of Translyvania that is conjured up by fictional accounts in books and the cinema is so well entrenched in Western culture that many Americans are not even aware that there is a real Transylvania. Anyone looking to improve this article would do well using this paper by Dr. Carmen Maria Andras in the Journal of Dracula Studies: "The Image of Transylvania in English Literature". It's fascinating what kind of reliable sources you can find when you look for them. DHowell (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times had an article a year or two ago that Transylvania was finally starting to open up tourist attractions based on the literary image. There were Dracula snow-globes, etc. May be useful to someone trying to improve the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mythical Transylvania is separate from the real Transvylvania, and merits a separate article for the same reason why we have separate articles for Iceland versus Thule. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Owl Restaurant Oldham[edit]

Not notable. PROD removed but no improvements since to establish its notability. Hammer1980·^talk 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP.Dchall1 (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable restaurant, with wikipedia article made seemingly to help prevent closure. Anarchia (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge (release date) and redirect. TerriersFan 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark River (Warriors)[edit]

procedural nomination Despite having been previously considered at AFD, article was nominated for PROD-deletion. PROD nominator states: "This is purely speculative. There is nothing to prove it will be a notable book upon its release. The whole article is one sentence of facts and then a plot narrative (by the way, how do we have a full plot before the book is released?)"--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh What is the worst part of this is who the original AFD creator was.........yeah, that'd be yours truly. Metros (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability at this time. The greater part of the article is just a quote from the author. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information should at least go back to the warriors (novel series) page ClawClaw (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no sourced information in here to be merged. In addition, all that would be appropriate to merge, if source, would be one single sentence. Metros (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Exactly, that one single sentence should still find it's way back. Too many articles have been deleted with none of the sourced info being saved. ClawClaw (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreate when it's published. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Consumer Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall in the United States. I have tried before to expand this page with no luck. Only sources are a blog and a user-submitted article on Deadmalls.com. No reliable sources seem to exist out there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - there seems to be some Cites here but I cannot access them from this computer. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're behind paywalls though; doesn't matter much since only one seems to have any good info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The reference above is to the mall being for sale again, not exactly a claim to notability. Anarchia (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Robbins[edit]

This article does not assert any biography notability. A 17-year old person who created myspace and made non-important poems? This article was CSD'ed but then another editor removed it. This other editor then further created non-notable two of this subject's poems: Man (poem) and Parties. Dekisugi (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, very much non-notable, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 I believe the account that removed the csd tag is a sock of the creator of the article. This person is not notable. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per.nom. Hammer1980·^talk 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Mall[edit]

Small, non-notable mall in Pennsylvania. Only sources are a local paper, which indicates local semi-notability but nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I initially created the article was that the West Side Mall was symbolic of the area's economic downturn, and a specific example of the economic travails of the communities on the west side of the Susquehanna River. However, I recognize that the only things that can be backed up by citations are the raw facts, so I understand why it ended up in AfD. Brad E. Williams (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for being a conversion. The local newspaper is a perfectly good secondary source. 452,000 sq. ft isnt small Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many malls nationwide have been converted to a strip mall, so that alone doesn't make it notable. The local newspaper is a good source, but it only establishes notability within the community. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn strip mall This is a Secret ^account 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally US malls under 800,000 sqft need to assert notability. This one does not. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundry (shopping center)[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Pennsylvania, just another big clump of big box retail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources to stand up notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 03:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Triangle Circus[edit]

Essentially they are just a group of henchmen to the Penguin in Batman Returns. They're unimportant outside of that movie and not all that important even within the movie. Certainly not important enough to be given they're own article. Stephen Day (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 00:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Tyrenius (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sankho Chaudhuri[edit]

Not notable, I don't think. Just seems to be a timeline of events. Registered 734 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though references needed. One can't expect much online for an Indian artist who died in 2006 aged 90, but there should be obituaries at the least - oh there are & I've added one. Notability certainly asserted, and commissions are distinguished. Did nom actually look at the ghits, I wonder?Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:Johnbod. If he was a nobody, he would not have his obit in the Telegraph. However, it's a crap article which reads like a CV, so I reckon it is pretty unencyclopaedic Ohconfucius (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is notable. I have added few reliable sources to the article as well -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and Ohconfucius. This is not yet an article, but Telegraph obit can be of aid. JNW (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to June 21. Core desat 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 21, 2003[edit]

No real assertion of notability. I think either it should just be speedied or redirected to June 21. jj137 (Talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to June 21 per nom, logical choice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, what a boring day. Yeah, redirects are cheap, but so is tapwater. Don't want to encourage anything. Mandsford (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being outside of wiki's etablished convention. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per nom Doc Strange (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paleorthid (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny concept, though. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Scout Ranch camps[edit]

No assertion of notability. jj137 (Talk) 02:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable group, no notability asserted, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable part of the scout ranch, apparently a necessary branch of the main article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You also forgot to put the AfD tag on the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as most of this information is well-documented at Philmont Scout Ranch, which is indeed notable. The camps themselves are not notable, except as components of Philmont itself. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 05:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, well done list, one of the best I've seen, as lists go, notability shown at parent article, this is simply an adjunct to that article. Chris (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These camps are notable in total as part of Philmont. This article was deliberately created by merging a number of individual camp articles that were just stubs and by moving the list of camps from the main article. Since this material was split, it is *not* documented in Philmont Scout Ranch. The article needs a lot of work, especially sources, but is not irredeemable. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Chris and Gadget850-Phips (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gadget850. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gadget850. --evrik ^(talk) 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gadget850 (who said it so much better than I could). - Dravecky (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Buffyverse[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Actually, I have no idea what this is, but it should be deleted. jj137 (Talk) 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as in-universe fancruft, completely lacking in any manner of context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant and original research. It appears to be about how (in the Buffyverse) a vampire's personality is influenced by a person's personality before they were turned. In terms of character info, it's already on each charater's article. In terms of analysis, it's original fan research. Unless, of course, it is verifiable, in which case it can be merged into the Vampire (Buffyverse) article. - Koweja (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is WP:NN in-universe fancruft, as are most of the wiki-linked character pages. Use a wooden stake through the heart. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, and, when you figure out what the context is, it's OR.Kww (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - to Vampire (Buffyverse), which appears to have been this author's intent anyway. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as previous; no merge as the information is already in the main article --Paularblaster (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. May be deleted per WP:V next time if still unsourced by then. Sandstein (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4690[edit]

Seems to be pretty much spam. jj137 (Talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. I think it would be best to delete and start again with one (providing a point-of-sale OS is notable). A^RendedWinter 04:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would almost say this is a CSD candidate, per notability not generally asserted or established. Avruch ^Talk 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reads like an advert Doc Strange (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. Does seem to be advertising - promoting the product. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you read the details, it does not sound like advertising, e.g.: "it's pretty obvious that it is not the most up-to-date on current technologies or software support" or "not extremely advanced". True, there are lots of complimentary statements, but they may well be appropriate. Plus, this really is, I believe, a specialized operating system of some importance. Perhaps some editing will make it more palatable, but don't delete it. Tim Ross·^talk 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup it needs to be rewritten and have notability established, but an IBM POS system would probably meet notability requirements. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair points. If the article can be rewritten, sourced with reliable sources and the notability can be asserted then I wouldn't object to keeping the article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per 132.205.99.122. I don't see major WP:NOT#ADVERTISING problem, the article seems pretty neturally written. --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup There is a lot of good information in there it just needs to be cleaned up. Mikemill (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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