Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

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 redirect to List of Jericho episodes, let someone do the merge from there, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid agruement. Secret account 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casus Belli (Jericho episode)[edit]

Casus Belli (Jericho episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A google search turned up nothing to indicate notability of this TV show episode. A wiki for this show exists, at jerichowiki.cbs.com AnteaterZot (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google searches may not accurately reflect available information; furthermore, the "wiki" is sponsored and hosted by the show's broadcaster for promotional purposes, and should not be considered a replacement site. --Ckatzchatspy 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your alternative to Google searches? Do you have a source demonstrating notability that I couldn't find via Google? Because I tried and failed to find any source at all. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN unsourced no real world notability, fails WP:EPISODE by a long long way. RMHED (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge and redirect. WP:EPISODE specifically states "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." As this article is neither "unverifiable" or "original research", it should not have been proposed for deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. WP:Episode cannot supersede notability requirements, which this article fails. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect I would like to know what about this is not original research.Ridernyc (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Plot summaries written by watching the episode aren't original research... they're a valid use of primary sources, as long as they're simply stating things that anyone who watched the episode could say without synthesis/interpretation. Pinball22 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is still not notable. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to keep. I know about other stuff existing, but I don't see the logic in deleting this particular episodes, and not the others in the same season. I know it's supposed to be article-by-article, case-by-case, but I still can't ignore the fact that the other episodes in the same series, in the same season, have articles about them. As I've stated, I'm inclined to keep for now. --Son (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prodded a bunch of episode articles, but this one is here because it was deprodded. AnteaterZot 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete/Merge(changed from keep) per WP:EPISODE Gtstricky 15:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first line of WP:Episode states "All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This episode fails that requirement; the article should be delėted. AnteaterZot 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP : AnteaterZot's argument, A wiki for this show [already] exists, at jerichowiki.cbs.com, is plain ridiculous : my dictionary already talks a lot about Napoleon, so let's delete the wiki article about him... AnteaterZot has to learn the goal of an encyclopedia kernitou talk 07:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:EPISODE is just a guideline and is not set in stone. This should be kept as TV episodes are generally notable. Redrocketboy 17:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, especially since I checked for sources before nominating this article. AnteaterZot 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Google search is not a check. The Internet isn't the world. Redrocketboy 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Saying sources exist isn't enough. You must provide the sources. AnteaterZot 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added three links to what look like reviews. Whilst they aren't the best sort of sources, they show that the episode is notable enough to have been reviewed. Redrocketboy 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / merge into season page; reviews, in my opinion, are not sufficient for notability. Most episodes of a show will be reviewed by someone, so it's really not a particularly useful lens to use. There is still nothing that seems to assert that this episode was particularly important in real life, as you can say about the final episode of M*A*S*H* etc. It would be better to shorten it and merge it with other episodes in a season page or delete it. Epthorn (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:48, 8 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 Already Deleted SkierRMH (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD A3 by User:Hmwith[1]. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mcknight[edit]

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

Astrowob (talk) 23:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noob-Smoke[edit]

Noob-Smoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mortal Kombat game articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blernsball[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just a stand in for baseball in Futurama to hang a few jokes from. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:43, 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 Delete, on strength of arguments. Article without any source, purely in-universe, is a combination of plot summary and trivia. No good, policy based arguments to keep the article have been given. Fram (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in Futurama[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep notable show, consistent with treatment of Star Wars cruft etc. JJL (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If its cruft, as you say, why would we want to keep it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - same reasons given in the other AfDs for these sub-articles. They probably should have been proposed together. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I do we do that? As I said about notability, every article should stand on its own, for keeping or deletion. Being a subarticle doesn't qualify an article to be unnotable or a plot repetition like this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the arguments for and against deletion are the same. All the verbiage spent in those AfDs apply here too. I'd rather not have the same discussion five times. Torc2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't care if it's cruft - people are too quick to delete things on Wikipedia. We have an opportunity here to create the most comprehensive database of information ("trivial" or otherwise) in history. If people don't want to read the article, they don't have to - why would we want to deprive interested parties of this information? It's not like Wikipedia has limited space for articles. Danflave (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Read up on policies instead of assuming Wikipedia must be the place for anything people create. Wikipedia isn't an anarchy. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nope, it's a kakistocracy. 137.22.226.140 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bureaucracy, despite them having a rule in place that basically says, "..well, NUH UH." 216.37.86.10 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your desire to speak out, but your argument completely ignores a Wikipedia POLICY: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I should add that people "don't have to read the article", but if we let every single article stay, they might not be able to read it! It would be IMPOSSIBLE to organize articles under your ideal. --Teggles 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, WP:IAR is policy. Let's assume he's citing that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while the information may be "duplicative," I believe aggregation of this information in one page creates significant value. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The information here may exist elsewhere, but this format makes it easy to find in one place, and I think that has a great value to interested parties 24.11.202.83 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is on a sliding scale here. I would suggest keeping the major planets, severely trimming the information on the minor worlds visited, and entirely deleting those only referenced in the show unless they are also referenced in independent sources. 70.112.121.70 (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no need to delete this, perhaps trim the article a bit to only list the more commonly referenced planets (no need to keep one that was referenced just once). Ariel. (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A definite keep. Very informative and no different then specifics for any marvel comic
  • Keep - This is one is a great, informative article. 92.80.84.111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a Futurama wikia, otherwise delete. There is not a single assertion of real-world notability (as necessary per WP:FICT), and I doubt that real-world coverage about these planets even exists. – sgeureka t•c 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a lot of effort went into it and it contains accurate, useful information. Stop rubbishing others' work because it's "unimportant". --90.197.75.110 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could put a lot of effort into an article about a bit of dirt on the signpost down the street, and it could be completely accurate. Not a reason to keep. In addition, the usefulness of an article is completely subjective and so not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is no less important than any article on wikipedia about Klingons. Jlam4911 13:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. There is much discussion of "Klingons" in reliable sources such as magazines and newspapers, and "Klingons" have made appearances in other media (e.g. The Simpsons). Could the same be said about the planets of Futurama? If this specific area of Klingons is in fact not mentioned in reliable sources, it should be deleted itself. WP:WAX would be a very good read for you. --Teggles 08:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article is good and informative. eyelessfade 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant, an article about Bill Clinton's left testicle could be "good and informative", that doesn't mean it should be kept.
  • Keep - Frankly, whether this particular article abides exactly by the rules or not, Wikipedia has many, many similar pages, suggesting either a near-complete lack of enforcement, or that this article does not actually fall afoul of those rules. Why delete this one? Peter Crabtree 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That simply means that those articles should be deleted too. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article appears to have a following and a desire in the community to keep and improve. There is no reason to delete. rmosler 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it stands. Rescue? Currently, it has just about no sources, but I'm sure it's notable as a topic. There has to be stuff out there, see the almost 2 million Ghits. Bearian 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of which none are reliable sources. Actually, that's a guess. If you can find a reliable source in there, I'll retract my statement and this article WILL be kept. Otherwise, it will be deleted. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...you do realize that you don't have the ability to arbitrarily decide the fate of this AfD, correct? If consensus stands that the article should be kept, it is kept, regardless of how you feel. Sorry if that's a little blunt, but your excessively combative attitude displayed thus far is a tad bit worrisome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another bad faith deletionist nomination that damages the integrity of this site. It's embarrassing. All of these keep votes will be discredited by 'vets' soon enough. 216.37.86.10 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion is not bad faith because it focuses on the genuine violation of policies and guidelines. These keep votes will be (or are) descredited because they're invalid arguments. In addition, "vets" (i.e., people who have been editing for longer and understand Wikipedia's guideline and policies) do not have any higher role than other editors. The only difference is that these arguments are poor. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has its place on Wikipedia. Remember, wiki is not paper. MikeCapone 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As usual, the keep voters resort to both ignoring policy and personal attacks instead of actually fixing a very deficient article. The best that can be shown is a random google search with wikipedia mirrors. Unless someone has an actual policy argument or is going to attempt to actually improve the article, there is little hope for keeping. Judgesurreal777 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Fun and interesting article about a show with a large following. Please do not delete. benatkin 17:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enjoyability and interest of an article is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. Futurama has a large following, not its planets. If there is a large following of Futurama's planets, I might reconsider my argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Clearly a well-done and comprehensive article. There are a lot of similar articles on TV series that never get deleted. Vincent 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could create a comprehensive and well-done article article on my foot, that doesn't mean an article on my foot should be kept. Consensus for another television show with a different level of popularity is irrelevant to this discussion. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No notability, complete fan cruft. Why is everyone voting keep? It makes no sense.
  • Keep -- This is a valuable reference of our pop culture society.

Knowitall 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JNN WP:UGH 216.37.86.10 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using notability to ask for verification through reliable out of universe sourcing, of which none has been demonstrated yet. Judgesurreal777 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, delete & transwiki per sgeureka, then. Knowitall 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge Keep -- Come on, Consistency demands this be kept. I have previously nominated the articles for single characters from a Half-Life sequel to be deleted, and was repeatedly told that it was insane to delete such articles, which remain and have remained for years.
  • That is a completely different situation. It is for a video game, not a movie. It is for characters, not a list of planets. It is for a topic with a differing amount of reliable sources. There are too many differing factors. Your argument would only be valid if those articles were in the EXACT SAME circumstances as this. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Keep- It's interesting and informative. It could be attached to the Futurama wiki, but deleting would be senseless.

  • An article's interest to someone is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Although this article needs better sources, it is instructive and interesting. Definite keep.
  • An article's interest to someone is completely subjective, and so this is not a valid argument. --Teggles 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all information is verifiable via the show and related books. Notability of some individual items may be in question, but this is an article on all of them. —siroχo 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lacking citations isn't a cause for immediate deletion. . leondz
You're correct, but the nonexistence of reliable sources (NOT FUTURAMA ITSELF) is a cause for deletion - not immediately, but when this discussion is over. If reliable sources are not displayed, this discussion should only result in deletion. --Teggles 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep in mind that adding the "this is not a majority vote" boilerplate and in the edit summary that this is due to user involvement does not allow you to immediately discredit all keep votes with valid arguments. This is extremely distasteful and rude, and exposes just how much outside involvement is easily dismissed by 'veteran editors'. This tactic has been done on other AfD discussions in the past, and as a result has discredited ALL votes not in favor of the nomination, REGARDLESS of supporting evidence. An article regarding the moon landing was butchered from several pages of hard work down to a pathetic 2 sentence footnote. Deceitful actions like this only further damage the integrity and validity of Wikipedia, and discourage any new users from contributing. Then again, that's exactly what many of this site's vets are attempting to push into effect. 75.65.91.142 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow! It appears to be that every single keep vote is invalid. No one accurately specified any policy or guideline in support of their argument. Would you like some policies and guidelines for delete? Here's a teaser:

He's too busy discrediting all non-veterans to acknowledge your valid argument. 75.65.91.142 00:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Siroxo, it's not the comments of a few. As you may have noticed, I replied to a lot of the comments. All of them ignore or misunderstand policy and guidelines, including yours. And Mr. I-hate-Veterans, that is exactly why I am discrediting others' arguments. Siroxo has not made a valid argument. I quote him: "Notability of some individual items may be in question, but this is an article on all of them." Nobility is on a topic, and the topic of Futurama planets has not shown to be notable, which means the article should be deleted. Have a read of WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means THE TOPIC OF PLANETS IN FUTURAMA MUST HAVE SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES THAT ARE NOT FUTURAMA. --Teggles 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quit deliberately putting words in my mouth and biting anyone and everyone that isn't worthy to contribute to this site. Every redditor has teethmarks on their leg. 75.65.91.142 00:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shut up, every edit you make to this site involves you accusing people of deleting articles with no consideration for their content. You make up a group called the "vets" who apparently dismiss arguments from "non-vets" just because of their status. The "vets" are simply following policy and guidelines, and the "non-vets" aren't. In fact, that's the only method of which you are separating the groups - this one is following policy, he's a vet! I won't put up with people like you, or people who can't think of an argument that doesn't effectively mean "It should be kept because I like it, and it's not harming anyone!" --Teggles 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'group' affiliation is based on your bad attitude and condescending tone. 75.65.91.142 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a little illogical. I have a bad attitude and I'm condescending, so I must be part of a (nonexistent) group? Perhaps I'm just angered by dealing with people like you all of the time? Here, I'll be nice. Read the articles on this page: Wikipedia:List of policies. They're actually the centerpoint of deletion discussion, even though all of the "keep" votes would imply otherwise. --Teggles 02:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone would do well to re-read WP:CIVIL the next chance they get. Let's all love each other and whatnot. -FrankTobia 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shut up everyone and be civil! - Now that I have your attention, the AFD nomination made it clear that the notability is in question, not anyones motives or behavior. And those hoping to keep this article MUST establish notability through references, or don't bother posting endless keep votes. Either follow the guidelines or don't bother joining in; Wikipedia has guidelines and its time they were respected. Judgesurreal777 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep if cleaned Inclusionists will say that WP is not a paper encyclopedia so everything should be included. Deletionists want to keep the reputation of WP intact by not making this a collection of meaningless trivia. WP has policies that support BOTH ideologies. Sort of makes it difficult to make an objective decision, doesn't it? I hate to cite other articles as examples for why this article should be kept (because its really not a good idea anyway and is argued against by WP), but I just see what other meaningless, similar lists having been allowed to exist (List_of_Star_Trek_planets) and I have to say that if this list could be kept if properly sourced and cleaned up a bit. I have no knowledge on Futurama and no time to devote to an article this large, but others should hopefully be able to fix it. I personally think that lists are in and of themselves unencyclopedic (my opinion...but I've never opened a paper encyclopedia and seen a list of ANYTHING), but what's been previously decided as being acceptable in WP is pretty much set in stone, so I must press for this list to be kept and cleaned up. will381796 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems too trivial to be encyclopedic. And there's no sources to speak of. Redrocketboy 18:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the policy that should apply to this article is WP:NNC. This is essentially information that could be merged into the main Futurama article, but would have to then be separated out again due to WP:SIZE problems. Consensus is clearly to keep these articles. Torc2 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no notability, why would it be merged anywhere? Judgesurreal777 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futurama has no notability? This is just an extension of that article. Torc2 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either back up your claims or quit mass-tagging articles for deletion with the bare minimum effort on your part. This should fall under WP:NNC, along with other articles you're trying to destroy, and to respond to every claim with a simple, 'No, it's not notable,' just doesn't cut it. If you can't properly submit articles for deletion, please let someone else do it. 75.65.91.142 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the personal attacks, they are pointless. The AFD asks that those who would keep the article must justify the articles verifiability through references, or don't say "keep". That's the only issue, if you wish to actually participate in saving the article, insulting me will get you no where. Judgesurreal777 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate you threatening me on my page. I hope you haven't threatened other users that have dared to go against this batch of weak nominations.75.65.91.142 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply pointed out to you that incivility will not be tolerated, whatever you think of my actions regarding deletion or anything else. If you would open your eyes, by the way, you would see that at minimum 90% of the articles I have nominated have been deleted, so don't accuse me of going against policy either. Judgesurreal777 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe WP:JUSTAPOLICY applies as I gave a reason why the article currently goes against the polcies mentioned. [[Guest9999 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • No, you're just name-dropping. WP:5P is an especially large stretch on this one. Torc2 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I would like to further elaborate on why I think the article conflicts with the various guidelines and policies I mentioned above:

WP:NN states:

"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article"
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Conflict with article: There are no secondary sources at all are given in the article. There is therefore absolutely no evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources.

WP:FICT states:

"fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources."
"Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability"

Conflict with article: There is no real world information within the article.

WP:NOT#INFO states:

"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"

Conflict with article: Most of the reasons for keeping the artcile seem to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL or WP:EFFORT, the topic does not appear to be notable and no real reson why the rules should be ignored for this topic has been given.

WP:NOT#PLOT states:

"Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context... not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot"

Conflict with article: There is no real-world context or content in the article, the article is essentially just an extended section of plot summary.

WP:V states:

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Conflict with article: No reliable third party sources have been found for the topic or the article.

WP:NPOV states:

"A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view"

Conflict with article: There is not a balanced selection of sources - just one the primary source material.

WP:OR states:

"only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"

Conflict with article: The article presents the primary source material from the television episodes as fact - it qualify them with discriptos. Without specialist knowledge of the tv show the information within the article is compeletly unverefiable.

WP:WAF states:

"Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference."
"Another rule of thumb is that if the topic is notable, secondary information should be available and possibly already in the article."

Conflict with article: There is no real world information for the article to be based around and no secondray sources seem to exist.

WP:RS states:

"Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

Conflict with article: None of the material within the article is supported by cited sources.

WP:5P states:

"All of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define Wikipedia's character"
"Wikipedia is free content"

Conflict with article: If the article and content of the article go against so many (everything apart from WP:IAR) of the core polcies and guidelines then they will likely go against the document summarising said polcies and guidelines. There is a question over whethere a description of a fictional work without any real world content, evaluation or anaysis qualifies as free content. [[Guest9999 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

  • This is a sub-article of Futurama. Every single one of those is satisfied once you recognize that these are one article broken into several pieces due to size considerations. The only appropriate guidelines are WP:NNC and the final paragraph of WP:NOTINHERITED. Torc2 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NNC?, this proposal is not to delete the content of the article it is to delete the article itself - no sources are present or have been provided that show significant coverage the planets of Futurama. So called sub articles that rely entirely upon another article are not recognised by the core policies and guidelines of Wikiepdia.
  • This article is for all intents and purposes part of the Futurama article. Torc2 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:FICT - a very appropriate guideline - "sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability" - relevent part put in bold by me. There is no way to justify this article as it is by any policy bar WP:IAR, otherwise no sources = no article, period. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • The real-world information and notability is found in the main article: Futurama. The guideline WP:FICT conflicts with other guidelines (notably WP:NOTINHERITED - don't know why you choose to ignore that) on whether this is sufficient, but most people understand that a sub-article can't possibly be expected to be judged in utter isolation. In any case, WP:IAR in itself is more than sufficient here, since the vast, vast majority of users recognize that keeping this is more beneficial to Wikipedia than deleting it. Absolute strict interpretation of these guidelines would result in every single "List of" article being deleted. Torc2 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay not a guideline, it's from a good essay but actual guidelines and policies that directly relate to the subject (WP:FICT, WP:NN, etc) have to take precedent. [[Guest9999 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment: this is a great article; it's simply wrong to delete it. I'm not citing any wikipedia guidelines; rather, I'm citing simple human concerns and empathy: why would you erase something that a bunch of other people worked hard on, and that a bunch of people will enjoy reading? If the wikipedia policies say to delete this, then the wikipedia policies are wrong and should be ignored.

However, it would not be as wrong to move the article somewhere else (wikia or whatever) and leave here a pointer to the new location ("This content has been moved to blah blah blah") instead of just a blank page. The pointer is key -- if the article is just deleted, all incoming links are broken and potential readers are left with no way to find the content they were directed to. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per ignore all rules and the clear consensus that this article should be here. We really need to revisit our guidelines and policies when they are being used to decimate coverage of popular fictional works, simply because we can't go to Google and find academic studies or newspapers covering the significant details of these works. Plenty of sources exist for articles like these, but because we've made our definition of "reliable sources" so strict, we deem any these "fansites" as being "unreliable" and say we can't accept them as sources. Malarkey. Many of these "fansites" are as "peer-reviewed" as any academic work on more "serious" subjects, especially ones concerning works that are extremely popular among Internet users. They are often as reliable as (if not more so than) any newspaper or published book, such that they are often cited by such publications when they need detailed information on fictional works. Having a list of planets is akin to having a list of characters. It is a reasonable compromise between having a detailed article about each fictional planet collecting "fancruft" and having no information at all, or information that is so scattered among different episode articles, that it is difficult for interested people to find. Such efforts to collect information in this way ought to be applauded, not deleted. DHowell 02:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there have been any efforts, they have come to naught, and there has been no satifsctory assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is permissable to take information and create a seperate page to house it so it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of space in the main article. That is what was done here. Thus it is fine as is. Oh and for #9999, Primary sources are acceptable when writing about fictional works. This list is derived from primary sources and thus meets the requirements for have reliable sources. Verifiability is in the same vein, it's a TV show, it's not hard to verify what happened in an episode.--Marhawkman (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires that, for fiction, secondary sources are established so that it isn't just plot regurgitation, as this article is. Now a huge discussion has occurred, and for all the huff and bluster, there has been no establishment of notability through reliable sources, only various keep votes that have nothing to do with either policy or the nominating reasons. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - primary sources are acceptable for use within an article when writing about almost anything as long as they are used appropriately. However they are not acceptable for establishing notability - this is made clear in both the primary notability criteria which states that secondary sources establish notability and the specific criteria for fiction which confirms the need for real world information. There is no evidence that the topic of this article has been the subject of any (let alone signicant) coverage by secondary sources which could have provided the required real world information. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep per the sizable discussion above. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The major elements of a major work like this are notable, and this is much better than an attempt to do articles on each of them. The sources are the ones appropriate for the subject. DGG (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THERE IS NOT EVEN AN REFERENCE SECTION! It is appropriate for this article to have NONE? Please, explain this to me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's appropriate, as the references are built into the article itself. Just because there isn't a References heading doesn't mean everything is unsourced. For example, List of planets in Futurama#Eternium says "In the episode 'The Day the Earth Stood Stupid', Nibbler states the Nibblonian race was already seventeen years old at the time of the Big Bang." What's the source? "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid". It doesn't need a ref tag to be referenced. While I suppose it would be nice if there were a reference that stated when exactly in the episode it happens, it's hardly a reason to delete the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are no references built into the article, and there has been no assertion of notability through reliable sources, which is what the article needs. You are in desperate need of reading wikipedia policies on notability with regard to fiction, here it is WP:FICTION. Once you understand this policy, you will realize the arguments you are making are flatly wrong and misunderstanding of the issues being discussed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit of friendly advice: if you would be just less combative in your responses, you might have a better chance of convincing people that you're right. Telling people that they flat-out don't know policy isn't really the best way to win friends and influence people, so to speak.
Futurama itself (the concept) is plenty notable, and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to apply the topic's notability to various aspects of it; in this case, while individual articles on each of these planets would most certainly warrant deletion, I feel that a consolidated list is acceptable middle ground. Yes, it would do well to see some pruning (I found a reference to a non-existent episode[2]), but I don't believe deletion is in order.
Deletion is not the only response to an article you find wanting. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not group therapy or a job interview, its just the truth, you have no grasp of what we are talking about and everything you say reflects that. Should I pander to you, and say "oh that's find, ignore policy, whatever you feel is right". What would that accomplish? If I did that, a dozen other people would say the same things I am saying, which is read the policies, and you will get on the same page with those who understand the policy as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

← Judgesurreal777, Evula is right; you are coming across as hostile by telling others they don't know policy. Evula is a respected admin and I would expect him to know policies such as this. As for the article, the references built into the article ("in episode X character Y says this") are fine for factual accuracy and even verifiability. But the accuracy of the list is not in question, it's the notability. The article needs external sources to indicate why it is notable. Once notability has been established the article can use 1st party sources to prove it's content, but it needs to show notability first. As of now there are no references other than the episodes so there is no assertion of notability. As for the argument that notability is inherited, that is very weak. If the planets were crucial to the overarching plot of Futurama (not just a single episode) then it would be applicable, however everything from Minor planets down is unimportant. I think the list should be trimmed to only the major planets that appear more than once, the rest seems to just be cruft ("Large green bushes that grow in a slightly triangular pattern. They grow alone and in clumps and grow to about 6 ft." - Matt Groening probably just thought it looked more interesting than regular grass, why include that in an encyclopedia?). James086Talk | Email 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I should pretend he does, when he clearly does not, when he misunderstands every argument I make. You see, it doesn't matter who he is, or how great a guy/girl he is, the point is he is making arguments with no regard to policy. Period, end of story. If the truth is mean, so be it, text based discussions rarely correctly convey the emotions involved. If you want to know, I feel great passion for conveying what I am saying, and no meanness is intended. But do you expect me to be quiet when and ADMIN says there are references and there are NONE? It is very telling that for all this defense of this article, not one reference has been produced for notability, and I think it doubtful that one will show up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No but you should avoid tellings someone that "you have no grasp of what we are talking about" as I'm sure, based on what I've seen of Evula, that he knows what we are talking about. I don't expect you to be quiet, I just expect you to be civil. You may rebutt the arguments made by Evula or anyone else, but concentrate on their argument rather than them. Say "policy does not support your argument" rather than "you do no know policy" or something like that and you will have far more sucessful interactions with people. James086Talk | Email 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should argue the that article has demonstrated no notability, or that there are references somewhere that would make this notable. To claim it has references currently when there is not even a section is based on no policy I have ever heard of, and I do not even know how to respond, its like we are talking past each other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with EVula. The Notability rules are extremely tricky to actually implement in regards to fictional works. It's very easy to find references to Futurama and stuff within it. However, the requirements for notability guarantee that 999 out of 1,000 are useless since they A: are first party, or B: are nonauthoritative. Wikipedia rules do not require subpages to be independantly notable. As is the article could be considered a sub page of the main futurama article.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT is not not as strict as WP:N for third-party material, but it makes clear the need of "reliable secondary sources [that] cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise", and allows splitting off material into new pages when "encyclopedic treatment" is apparent. But as this article basically fails WP:NOT#PLOT (i.e. non-encyclopedic treatment) and doesn't establish notability per WP:FICT (and probably never will), it shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no attempt to establish notability. Ignore all rules to me must be justified very strongly and it certainly is not here. The huge amount of votes here, in contrast to most AFDs, is suspect and makes me no more likely to want to keep the article. The arguments made in favor of delete are numerous, strong, and based on WP policy which was created by consensus. The arguments against, to me, are throughly unconvincing and have been rebutted effectively in every case. I realize that some people may be unhappy about their work being deleted (hence the impassioned pleas) but that's not enough. Epthorn (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with those who have pointed out that the arguments for keeping bear little relation to the relevant policies and guidelines. It needs to demonstrate notability, sub-article or not, and it doesn't. Could this ever be anything more than a plot summary anyway? Miremare 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no reliable secondary sources dealing with this specific topic (which is cruft, BTW). SharkD (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree that none of the keep votes here appear to be rooted in any relevant policy. The article is entirely in-universe and has no secondary sources. It does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (after moving info to appropriate wikia) This is non-notable material and lacks sources. Even considering the argument that this page inherits the notability from the main Futurama page, the sub-article should only be a separate article if that information would normally be discussed in the main page but is otherwise split for MOS/summary style purposes. The approach that this article takes is not written in that format - it is set out to simply be a list of fictional places that cannot be worked into the current Futurama article - its a list for list's sake. --MASEM 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_planets:_A-B 90 percent of the arguments listed here in favor of deletion would apply here too, but nobody would dream of deleting this. The references go straight to episodes.24.11.202.83 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the humor of Futurama is that the planets are not notable. SharkD (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't think Star Trek suffers from a lack of notability. Similar information can be found in published works. See here, here and especially here. SharkD (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also in order to prove notability, not accuracy, sources external to the episodes are required. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of the article. James086Talk | Email 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, please. You're comparing this article to one that has multiple published works dedicated to the subject? Also, how is WP:OTHERSTUFF relevant? SharkD (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant for 24.11.202.83 to take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF as s/he was the one who was saying that because the list of Star-trek planets is there it justifies a list of Futurama planets. I agree that the article should be deleted; there are no external sources to prove notability. James086Talk | Email 11:40, 7 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 merge and redirect to Zapp Brannigan. . Secret account 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus (Futurama)[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Zapp Brannigan. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Futurama is very much notable, and this article is well-written and well-sourced. I disagree with the nominator's judgment that the page can be "safely deleted" due to my perception of the value of the information contained therein. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Futurama's notability does not confer notability on everything within Futurama. The page is also not well-sourced, it's unsourced...nothing but wiki articles on various episodes. This has no significance outside the show, and very little within it (hence my merge suggestion). --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we assume that the episode articles are accurate representations of the episodes, then the page could be sourced using the episodes themselves. I imagine there is a method for citing TV episodes, though I don't know it myself. I still contend that the article is notable on its own, due to the popularity of the show. I agree that this should be demonstrated in the article. Though now that I'm reading the page on Zapp Brannigan, I don't see notability demonstrated there either. -FrankTobia 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia itself is not a secondary source. Therefore, it's not considered reliable by WP:RS. Zapp's article has issues too, but the sources in his article are secondary, and he at least has some significance outside the show. Please read WP:AADD, particularly this part and this part, which explain why your arguments are off a bit. --UsaSatsui 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that Wikipedia is not a secondary source; that was not my argument. The sources are the TV episodes to which the Wikipedia articles refer. The TV episodes themselves should be cited (or perhaps something like this), and not the articles. I believe that since the information contained in Nimbus (Futurama) can be found on a notable TV series, and broadcast on national television, that it warrants inclusion. This fan site and these images show that it's contained in our cultural consciousness, which I believe makes it notable. Also we're going to have to agree to disagree that the policy you've pointed out ("Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion": "What about article x?" and "Notability is inherited") do not accurately represent my argument. Elements of every such TV series are not notable by default; only when they stand on their own (as I believe this topic does, albeit fragilely) should Wikipedia include them. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this one needs to, and not additionally, the article needs to show how the creators invented this device, early design sketches, stuff like that in order to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I don't have that information, but we can be pretty sure it exists and that someone has access to it. I'm willing to wait for said information to surface, seeing as how the article is doing pretty well for itself in the meanwhile. Perhaps this constitutes rampant inclusionism, but I don't see the benefit of eliminating good and accurate information of tenuous but existent notability. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no established notability outside of Futurama, and not a major topic within Futurama. - Chardish 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would the nominator explain why this particular page can be safely deleted, showing that all the material is actually a repetition from the other articles. Myself, I dont know enough about the game to tell--all I know about it is what I read in Wikipedia--and I'd like so information to help with a rational decision.DGG (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a TV show, not a game (I guess those articles do need work...)--UsaSatsui 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with DGG and would appreciate if the nominator could demonstrate the duplicative information in this article. -FrankTobia 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. The Nimbus is already mentioned in all the episode articles where it is used, and in the main Futurama article. This article duplicates that, and adds no encyclopedic content to that information, so it is just unneeded, unreferenced repetition that can be safely deleted because all of the information, and more, is already on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Zapp Brannigan; and if information is duplicative or better presented elsewhere, link to that information so that it may easily be found by those interested. DHowell 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or prune and mergeto Zapp Brannigan; there is no attempt whatsoever to connect this to real life. Whether the article is redundant or no, it clearly fails notability. Information on the layout of a spaceship (much of it OR) belongs in a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Epthorn (talk) 04:39, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Earth[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Futurama episode articles. As such, this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN fancruft fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:RS, WP:FICT. --Son (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable fancruft failing WP:FICT - Chardish 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FICT. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is referenced in outside sources. Give me a couple of days, I'll even deal with getting the citations in there myself. This should be pretty easy to clean up. 24.11.202.83 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't, there isn't a one reference that isn't the show itself, which is the issue at hand. Please read WP:FICTION Judgesurreal777 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That simply is not the case. I was able to find plenty of outside references. Look, I know that your job is to delete stuff, and I know you're very good at it, but I think you might have jumped the gun on this one. Just give me a little time to get some references up there. 24.11.202.83 02:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to change my mind, assuming you have any evidence that this has notability, but I haven't seen anything. Do you really think you will find things like developer interviews, early design sketches, creator commentary, or popular reaction to this? I am curious. Judgesurreal777 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a notable aspect of a notable show, video game, DVD movie, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no sources to indicate that the article, and suggest it is deleted, and then redirected to Futurama. I (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary and redirect to Futurama, and merge details to the various episodes where the Earth government was featured; links from the main summary about Earth to the episodes should be made. Since this is more than the AfD closer should be expected to do, keep or redirect to give other editors a chance to do it. If kept, it should probably be renamed to Earth (Futurama), as I don't think the term "United States of Earth" was ever actually used on the show. DHowell 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, unsourced, fancruft. - Mdbrownmsw (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recently rewrote the overlong and entirely in-universe article about Robotology into a more general treatment of religion in Futurama. Perhaps this, and the deleted content about DOOP, could be trimmed and combined into a "Politics in Futurama" article. ~Matticus UC 11:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone could always recreate it later with adequate sourcing, instead of, well, none. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete- in universe, no attempt at real life notability, almost no chance of such notability being established through external (non-Futurama) sources. Epthorn (talk) 07:56, 8 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. Contact me for restoration of any merge-able content... — Scientizzle 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate entrepreneur[edit]

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

Neologism, article is not encyclopedic. No citations to support the term. Gtstricky (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism and unsourced. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article appears to be about Entrepreneur-ship as a major, not about college students who start up businesses. As such, every significant major is worthy of inclusion per WP:OUTCOMES. Is there any way to stubify, merge, or move it? Bearian 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does seem that some of the information would be valuable at Entrepreneurship education. I started a merge conversation but still believe this meets AFD criteria based on Neologism. Gtstricky 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Age is not a worthwhile topic division in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 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 --JForget 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerenes in popular culture[edit]

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

This appears to be yet another case of "let's move the clutter elsewhere to help the main article". A list of every mention is just clutter and a trivia guide. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be just a list of links to anyone and anything that mentions fullerenes. Nothing of an encyclopedic nature. -- MightyWarrior 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the sculpture pictured in the article simply appears to be a truncated icosahedron which the artist has preferred to call a "buckyball" rather than its mathematical name. Apart from the shape there is nothing to link this to the fullerene molecule! -- MightyWarrior 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you can see from the edit history that many people have contributed and endorsed the article, so we have already many keep votes. The article highlights culturally relevant molecules, there are not that many (!) so it is worth getting to know them. Valuable information. The unencyclopedic argument is without merit V8rik 17:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Needs more cites. See NY Times article. Bearian 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Fullerenes. Yes, I know, that article is already pretty long, but this material is, I think, worth keeping, and it's hard to see how it can logically stand on its own. Tim Ross·talk 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is not just a list (has a well put prose section) and contains multiple references. Plus, I feelstrongly that the article is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large or small, this can logically stand on its own as a discussion of the popular awareness of a notable topic. DGG (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • note: debate deleted from above discussion, article is inegral part of nanotechnology and not a comic V8rik 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone said it was. however, it does contain the line Tagon's Toughs, the Mercenaries in the web comic Schlock Mercenary often use Fullerene Personal Combat Armour worn as regular clothes. Sorting it allows those of us interested in sorting to examine the data we are building and draw conclusions. What does unsorting achieve? Hiding T 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd like to see a better article on this topic, but deleting this one is not the best way to hopefully get there. This article is not a directory, so the nom makes no sense. Moving content to a separate article is within reasonable editorial discretion. It can always be merged back or somewhere else at reasonable editorial discretion later. Dhaluza (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Fullerenes. Material is interesting and relevant to the main article. One way or the other, it's worth keeping -- it can either stand on its own, or be part of the wider topic. Why not let the editors most involved in this decide what's better? Turgidson (talk) 00:36, 8 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. Currently the article that the merge vote asked for is in AFD Secret account 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 3: The Jerkinators[edit]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 3: The Jerkinators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

contested prod. Non-notable cartoon episode. Article is just a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article does not fail WP:FICT -- it is work of fiction, not a fictional work. It may fail some other notability guideline, but that one is not a valid standard to apply. —Quasirandom 21:59, 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 delete discounting that conspiracy nonsense and the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:FICTION is policy. Secret account 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Marsh[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written and referenced. Borderline for notability but it's obvious that a lot of work went into this article. I don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. —dv82matt 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be an assertion of notability, until it has at least one secondary reference, how can it be called borderline? Judgesurreal777 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've done this dance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsweyr. —dv82matt 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasoning I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsweyr. Pagrashtak 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm starting to see the conspiracy here, Judgesurreal has been attempting to wipe out EVERY Elder Scrolls article. I was surprised at this one though, the Black Marsh page is pretty good. In fact it was once a good article, now it's being deleted? You and RMHED have been teaming up for this one and I must say I'm getting a bit irked. I checked the AFD list and you are literally responsible for almost every fiction AFD, on tons of other material not related to TES. I don't know how I can take you seriously when you have cranked out hundreds of AFD tags with the same robotic response. I thought I might have been the only one but a comment on your talk page from the user:Serendipodous summed it up pretty well when suggesting that you go out of your way to delete every single fiction related article for minor issues. Give it a rest.TostitosAreGross (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about, there is a conspiracy to enforce Wikipedia policies, THE SHOCK!!! And have you noticed NOT ONE ELDER SCROLLS ARTICLE HAS BEEN KEPT SO FAR? That must be a conspiracy by the admins to DESTROY ELDER SCROLLS....spooky. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conspiracy I'm noticing is the familiar faces on every TES article deletion page. I think you're in for a harsh reality when it comes to deleting every one of these articles. Would not be surprised if this article isn't going anywhere, and some of the larger ones that you've attacked, the ones with sources etc. I really don't think they'll be deleted. The ones that are gone probably deserved to be deleted but I haven't seen one iota of evidence that you are going to fill the vacuum of articles with anything meaningful. You could make a larger compilation article, but all you did was try to delete those too. How about you join WP:TES and do something other then deleting articles, like improving them. Seriously they aren't all non-notable.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure at some point someone will make a Universe of the Elder Scrolls series, and if they are lucky, Characters of the Elder Scrolls series, but for now, it looks like there are barely any references for any of this stuff. If you are so set on saving them, your path is clear, show us how notable they are, and I will gladly remove this AFD. I DONT CARE what the articles are about on Wikipedia, as long as they are good, or have the potential to be good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:26, 8 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 no consensus, even after discounting some of the keeps that doesn't confirm to policy, relist in a few months. Secret account 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elsweyr[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. All references are in universe. RMHED (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written and referenced. Borderline for notability but it's obvious that a lot of work went into this article. I don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by its deletion. —dv82matt 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How it is borderline notability? Where are the references that would hint at it? Judgesurreal777 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recheck the article. It has loads of refrences. It is however borderline due to not being specifically featured in a major game. I'd prefer to see it kept simply because I don't see a compelling reason to delete it so there is no reason to pointlessly antagonize the individual(s) who obviously put a lot of hard work into this article. —dv82matt 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please recheck my rationale, as it says that all those things that look like in line citations and references are all to fan sites, and that they assert no real world notability, and making this a plot recitation masquerading as a good article. Judgesurreal777 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I wasn't refering to your rationale but to the comment of yours which directly preceded mine. Am I to assume that you think that notability is binary rather than a continuum then? The references to fan sites are an indication (or "hint" as you put it) of notability. They are just not particularily good ones. I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion. How is the deletion supposed to improve Wikipedia? Is the deletion of this article crucial enough to risk alienating obviously talented resourceful users who are likely to contribute to other articles if they are not needlessly antagonized? —dv82matt 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it isn't binary, but on a scale of 1 to a 100, 100 being the most notable, we are firmly at 0 on this one as there is not yet on reference to back this article up. Except for 2 or 3 users, most of the people who would keep these article fail to understand wikipedia policies or contribute regularly to creating Featured or Good articles. Judgesurreal777 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your scale is poorly constructed. Placing Elsweyr at zero one a scale of 1 to 100 indicates a binary mindset to me. Though I understand you may be frustrated, I don't think deriding others adds anything to your argument. —dv82matt 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a fact! I have not seen them actively contributing at those locations, which are nexus's for quality articles. If they have, I am in error, but I don't think I am. And it is irrelevant what "mindset" I have, I follow wikipedia policies, including notability and verifiability, and that is what matters. Judgesurreal777 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what relevance a user's lack of contributions to the Good and Featured article processes could possibly have in relation to this AFD. If it is somehow relevant you'll have to spell it out for me. —dv82matt 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one that just brought up how talented and active the users are that would be turned away or antagonized, and I said that there isn't any proof that they are very active contributors, but we are getting severely off topic. Fact is, this article has asserted no notability on any scale or measurement, and will be deleted unless it does. Judgesurreal777 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well it's good to know the antecedent for your comment but it doesn't address the concern raised there at all. If you want to show my concern is unfounded you could ensure the primary contributer(s) to this article have been notified of this AFD. If they were to then post here saying that they are not opposed to deletion or are in favor of deletion I would be quite likely to modify my vote based on that. —dv82matt 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Not knowing the game enough to tell personally, I ask the nom. to explain more exactly why the content of this particular article is duplicative--not a statement about articles in general, this particular one. We are not making a policy here, we are applying it to individual articles. DGG (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the burden of those who would have the article kept to show that the articleis notable in its own right. As far as duplication, its comes from the plot sections of the Elder Scroll games, and all the rest of the information beyond what is mentioned there is cruft. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the vagueness of the answer to my question. We are supposed to be discussing this article, and the nom has given no specific comments about it . The argument is then that articles of this type should be deleted, and this is the wrong forum for that. Unless there is some indication that the content of the actual article is being addressed, i dont think this a valid nomination.~ DGG (talk)
  • Delete. Although this article has a large number of citations, they are all or nearly all to fan sites and not reliable secondary sources. There is no out-of-universe perspective, and nothing to indicate real-world notability. Therefore, the article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and should be deleted. Pagrashtak 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
these sites are appropriate sources for the subject. We are supposed to use common sense in this regard. DGG (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability must be established through secondary sources, not fan sites. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no this IS the place to suggest that this article be deleted because of it's type since it's type is not covered under what Wikipedia is. I understand that someone took a lot of time with the article, but that does not establish notability. I understand that this is a major element in a fictional game world, but that does not establish notability. Outside sources, not fan sites. DDG I would agree that the sources are appropriate for the subject but the subject is therefore inappropriate for wikipedia. Epthorn (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable, I can tell you it isn't true. The information given is accurate to the letter. As far as TES pages this one is detailed and shows where it gets its information. That alone makes it acceptably notable, you don't see any other articles on Wikipedia under such scrutiny. I know what will be said next, get a reference of notability, I'll look for it, you guys should look for it, but really this article should not be deleted, deletion is the last option not the first. There is a level of reason that must be used, Wikipedia has no firm set of rules for what do in these situations. TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:08, 8 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 SkierRMH (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Holovaty[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Article says he's mostly remembered for being someone's brother. Dougie WII (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep reasonably notable cossack leader of 18th century. Satisfies notability criteria Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a notable figure, one who survived repressions after the Zaporozhian Sich was disbanded. --Hillock65 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple references in published material. Greenshed (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable figure. —dima/talk/ 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. Ostap (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is just silly. There are much more obscure articles on Wikipedia, when this entry is quite notable to Ukrainian history. Bogdan що? 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable figure. Ceriy (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand--Kuban Cossack 12:35, 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 delete. and yes lack of sources are a reason for deleting an article, if non can be found, no sources were found during this debate, I'll undelete if Reliable sources, indpendent, non-trivial sources could be found Secret account 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Oblivion[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete WP is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:FICT by a long way. RMHED (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles about the characters in notable video games are pretty standard fodder for Wikipedia. —dv82matt 14:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't make them notable. Judgesurreal777 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tomato, tomahto the game is notable. An article about the characters of a game is really an article about that particular aspect of the game itself. Not all notable subjects can be adequately covered in a single article. Many, many articles of popular games or other media have related character articles. —dv82matt 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Fict. Gtstricky 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would Pete and the nom care to explain why this particular article fits their description? What they say could be applied equally to any article, good or bad. DGG (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but your rationale is completely inaccurate. Look at any Featured fictional topic, Jabba the Hutt, Jack Sparrow, Master Chief (Halo), and you will discover ample proof of notability from reliable sources, and vast amounts of material duplicated no where on Wikipedia. If this article cannot rise to such a standard, it should be deleted.

Judgesurreal777 21:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't giving a rationale, but asking for one, as I saw none applicable to the article. The argument above is that unless its an FA, it cant be kept. That's not our policy. DGG (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the whole question, and we can't guess at it, so if you do think there are some, please post some here so we can establish notability and withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:FICT. Features Sean Bean, Terrence Stamp. Sources are available. User:Krator (t c) 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please post them here so we can establish that so we can withdraw this deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sephiroth. The article should be improved with better sourcing, but lack of sources is a reason to clean up an article, not to delete it. There is ample precedent for "Characters of ..." articles for video games. -- Exitmoose (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide. "ample precendent' is not a valid arguement, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Epthorn (talk) 08:11, 8 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 no consensus. Secret account 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

Races of The Elder Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more NN game cruft. RMHED (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's argument, compromise is important. RMHED (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of sources, but nothing to show how the "races of Elder Scrolls" relate to anything out of universe. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of information about a very notable series of games. Many sources. Better to have a single list than a seperate article for each race. —dv82matt 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to The Elder Scrolls. The series is probably the most popular 1st person RPG ever, and while the article could be written in a less universe form, if you assume that this is a fork from The Elder Scrolls, none of the reasons at WP:DEL#REASON apply. Burzmali 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last two, notability is not inherited, so just because Elder Scrolls is notable, doesn't mean every article on it is also. And "Many sources", are you referring to the huge number of fan sites? None of those count without some real world sources to back them up. Judgesurreal777 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying every article on The Elder Scrolls is notable. In fact I've voted "delete" on several and abstained from voting "keep" on the majority of your recent AFD nominations. However I do feel that a few core articles documenting the in game universe from an out of universe perspective are warranted. —dv82matt 18:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I would agree with you if there was a demonstration in any of them of real world sourcing, but there isn't. Judgesurreal777 21:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you nom'd this for deletion while simultaneously nominating Argonian for GA- the only race not included into this article. --PresN 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that article, out of dozens of these Elder Scrolls articles, had a little bit of actual concept and creation information. Judgesurreal777 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would seem that a combination article is the way to go for material such as this. But the same rationale is being used as for the individual races. This does not make sense to me, as they are very different articles. Why not simply merge the others into articles like this? DGG (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be because all but one of them appears to have zero notability, and all put together they also have zero notability like this article. Why combine non notable articles to have one bigger unencyclopedic unreferenced plot repetition? Judgesurreal777 21:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no requirement at all for article content to be notable, just relevant. The subject as a whole is what needs to be notable, and it would seem obvious that the races in general in a series of games are a notable part of the content. DGG (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I accept that. But there isn't one reference showing this article's topic, or any sentences in it, are notable.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a well sourced article (or as well sourced as a game article can be), it might need improvement in some areas. Why does it fail notability? Because no international newspaper has written about the Dwemer race? Also, the rationale you give for this article is the exact same one you apply to all your other deletions. How is this article duplicative? Yes, Wikipedia is not a gameguide but this article doesn't read like a game guide, it merely describes notable elements from the Elder Scrolls universe. mensch • t 14:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The plot of the Elder Scroll games is already in the Elder Scroll game articles! And also, no developers have talked about how they developed the races, there are no development sketches, or frankly anything that shows this is notable to anyone but those who have played the game, and this is what it must have to be kept. Gotta find some references or its just plot recitation, or "junk". Judgesurreal777 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it notable. I reading about dwarves, and this represents a pop view on the subject.

64.119.129.74 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful is not a keep reason I'm afraid. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not be silly here. Judge, I've got to hand it to you, the articles you nominate usually don't have sources, this article does QED.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets say this one more time so everyone can hear it, THERE ARE NO REFERENCES IN THIS ARTICLE. That would be because the "references" that are here are just links to FAN SITES, which is not what WP:FICTION calls for. Once you read and understand this policy, you will realize what I'm talking about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, all you care about are references of notability, not secondary sources, which I might add are more important. This page is heavily sourced and pretty good, I don't see why you want to delete it. Never mind I do know why, it just isn't a very good reason when it comes to an article like this. Even RHMED disagrees with you, which is saying something as he is your partner in TES AFDs. These references alone establish notability. Example, lets say I've stumbled upon a really non-notable article, like a world of warcraft guild. Nobody has heard of or cares about said guild, so there are no references, if I try to add references I can't because they don't exist because there are no secondary sources and no coverage by any sort of media. The fact that this has sources, which are shown in the article is demonstration enough that this article is 10 times more notable then anything you get when you hit the random article button. I just hit the button, got an article for a Swedish Punk band's album, it hasn't been deleted, likely shouldn't be and I suppose I would have a tough time finding reliable sources of notability. If you are so intent on evidence that this is notable how about you find the reference and you put it in. I don't see why this has to fall on me just because I want to keep the article. Oh an Imperial library isn't really a fan site, it's more of a comprehensive list of texts found in game, basically it is a web-translation of material found in the game. Not every thing in the world has an article in the New York times, what are you looking for, some random media article discussing the merits of Oblivion races? You wouldn't find that on a Halo article and from what I've noticed you do work on, not delete halo pages. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am not teaming with anyone, people agree with most of the nominations because they should be deleted for violating policy. And what you say in the second half of your paragraph is right on the money; as it doesn't have the kind of notability that would be, say, referenced in the new york times, or even developers interview information, it doesn't have the amount of notability required for its own wikipedia article. With regard to Halo, there are still several articles that may have to be deleted/merged, but the Halo topic, by virtue of its popularity and referencing, has many Good Articles. I am not nominating them to be deleted as there are people working on the topic very actively who will merge and redirect if necessary. And finally, I simply made the suggestion as to what you could do to help keep the article, as arguing with me about policy, as you should know by now, is not a particularly fruitful pastime unless you just want me to teach you about WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article that got deleted were of piss-poor quality, this article is clearly different. Even if this article fails notability, which I don't believe it does, that doesn't matter if it is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, as in Wikipedia is better for having it. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules would be the policy I'd use for this, because a rule is preventing me from maintaining this article. There aren't many pages that establish their own importance, if you really wanted notability you would accept a media article mentioning the many races you can choose in game.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per DDG's rationale to a notable article. This has no notability outside the game universe; if someone wants to put it into the game's article (which does have notability), I would not be adverse to that although I suspect it would have to be in drastically reduced form. The references do not satisfy WP's notability standards, as noted above. Contrast this to the many scholarly works that have been written on Darth Vader or Hobbits, etc. Epthorn (talk) 08:15, 8 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. --Oxymoron83 08:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Legion[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete WP is not a game guide, this might be appropriate for the The Elder Scrolls wiki, but not for Wikipedia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. RMHED (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly generic name where there are real life examples that are much more notable. 132.205.99.122 21:28, 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 delete. Secret account 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morrowind (province)[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely copyvio but allow recreation. If someone fixes the copyvio concerns before the close of this AFD I'll change my vote back to keep. Keep More notable than some of the other provinces of Tamriel as it is the setting of the third game in the series. —dv82matt 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - For violating WP:COPY - Source Info Gtstricky 17:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't work for me. Please be sure to verify that Wikipedia's article was copied from there rather than the other way around. —dv82matt 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link and the page states it was created in 2004.Gtstricky 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, it does appear likely to be a copyvio. Changing my vote. —dv82matt 15:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The Black Marsh page was a total copyvio of what I wrote, so I'm not sure the Morrowind page is any better. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - How it is notable? That's what we are trying to assert after all, but to do so we need reliable sources, and so far we still have zero. Judgesurreal777 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable as the setting for the third game in the series. I'm sure we could find a reliable source in order to properly document that. If you are looking for a source that establishes notability without mentioning it in relation to the game then I think you have set the bar for inclusion far too high. At any rate it may be moot if this article is a CopyVio. —dv82matt 17:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the bar for notability; the article needs to show that it has some relevance outside of the game, such as if there is a developer interview documenting how he created the game, some early design sketches, reaction from game reviewers describing how great the region is visually, stuff like that. If it has none of that, it shouldn't have its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary notability for something like this will always be in relation to the game. That some subjects are also notable in secondary ways such as some of the ones you mention does not negate that the primary notability is nessessarily in relation to the game. Saying that it must meet the bar for notability outside of the context of the game is like saying that Mohamed Sissoko must meet the bar for notability outside the context of soccer. —dv82matt 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources as argued in more detail above are the appropriate ones for the subject. The RS guideline is meant to be used with some common sense. DGG (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....And that means articles don't have to have any references or meet any notability guidelines? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice summary on the houses, which makes the houses of morrowind article a little less necessary. It's notable too. That is, it is the setting of a game played by millions, a setting with an incredible amount of detail.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....Which has what to do with its lack of notability established through out of universe sourcing? If you are going to participate in these discussions, please remember that they are here because of specific reasons listed by the nominator, and saying "how popular it is" without anything backing it up doesn't accomplish anything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain level of common sense used when it comes to notability. I don't need to read some obscure article on a gaming website to establish that it is notable, I know it is and I know it is relevant because it is a SETTING, as in where the game takes place. Although now that I think about it, it wouldn't be too hard to find notability for both Morrowind and especially Cyrodil.TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:06, 8 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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedric Princes[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article should be integrated into the one of the main Elder Scrolls game articles. Peter1968 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, then you should say merge, not delete. DGG (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected Peter1968 07:23, 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 keep. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bestial Warlust[edit]

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

Article fails all criterion of WP:MUSIC. Article has no strong, third party, independent references to back up claims of grandeur. Does not assert notability and has nothing that would support its notability. ScarianTalk 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per previous discussion here. AllMusicGuide provides notability and source. It's really a no brainer. This article is notable as Bestial Warlust was one of the first of its genre in Australia, and if for no other reason, it should be kept as Australians use the english wikipedia and the article is notable to them. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not saying it's the best written article and it welcomes improvement (I mean I created the article but barely anyone else has touched it and I don't claim to write perfect articles) but it is notable and thats what matters. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]" - Pulled up from the music guideline... apparently, last time I checked, AMG (if it can even be included as a source) is just one source... it says "multiple" there. ScarianTalk 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in light of the preceding discussion's result and the additional source found then, it apparently satisfies WP:BAND as one of the premier examples of its style. Unfortunately, one of the external links seems to have died, but I thing the All Music Guide's biography should serve to back the article's claims of grandeur. Huon (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh crap! Thanks, that link was the highlight of the last discussion and nobody ever remembered to add it in to the article LOL, my bad! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite having an All Music page, the band fail all the criteria for WP:MUSIC. AMG is a database for any band or album, it doesn't necessarily mean they're notable enough for a Wiki article. Funeral 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless you actually read the all music guide page about them. The first sentence states:
"One of Australia's first black metal bands of note, the wonderfully named Bestial Warlust arguably still qualify as one of its most extreme ever."
That puts a hole in your theory. Keep as the band is notable...obviously. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually it doesn't. It was the opinion of two editors that it was notable. Just because it wasn't deleted doesn't make it notable. It just means that more people !voted for keep. Thanks. ScarianTalk 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the reference in AllMusicGuide, which certainly doesn't have an article as opposed to a discography for every band and certainly not for every Australian band. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per previous discussion Kameejl (Talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The only WP:RS you've found is AMG. Anyone can make a GeoCities page, that's not a reliable source. That review just looks like an amateur metal fan site. And I've looked through the first 10 pages on Google, the majority of the links are just free downloads and their lyrics. Funeral 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn subject. Fair Deal (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't actually see what part of WP:MUSIC they definitavely meet. It was my understanding that sites that accept reviews and articles from readers (ie:"fans") don't generally meet WP:RS please forgive me if AMG is an exception to this. I don't see that the band(s) that former members went on to participate in are/were any more notable than this band either.Garrie 04:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant band in Australian metal history, and further notable via their connections with Deströyer 666. They were notable when they were nominated for AfD 2 months ago and they're still notable now. --Stormie (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see how Destroyer is just about notable. But I don't see where the multiple sources (Which meet WP:RS) are to prove that Bestial is notable. Bestial has never been on a major tour, they haven't released anything on a major (or independent label), they haven't been the subject of numerous independent, non-trivial news articles... I don't see how the opinion of one writer on a metal site can be construed as making the band notable. ScarianTalk 10:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect that they haven't even released anything on an independent label, both their albums were released on Modern Invasion, which is one of the bigger and longer-established independent Australian metal labels. See [3]. --Stormie 02:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that you re-read what you just wrote as the second half of the sentence refutes the first half. --WebHamster 02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not seeing that. Scarian said "they haven't released anything on a major (or independent label)" which I took to mean he thought they either had released nothing at all, or only self-published releases. That is not correct. --Stormie 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but where is Modern Invasions notability? The label has to be notable aswell. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." (From WP:MUSIC) - Where is the labels' notability? ScarianTalk 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Don't meet the requirements of WP:BAND--WebHamster 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already stated above. Seal Clubber 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what 'personal' issues there are between User:Navnløs and User:Scarian. This might not a completly clear case, but for the sake of the reputation of Wikipedia don't enforce the notability guidelines verbatim when it comes to an article that is particularly interessting to a certain subculture or scene, in this case Black Metal. The music of Black Metal surely is controversial, but usually the music and what the people of the scene are like in reality are two different things. There are exceptions (-> Early Norwegian black metal scene). I have no really definite opinion of what I should think of the music of Black Metal (I prefer Death Metal), but I did some work on the more serious history of it. The reason why I am taking the time to contribute to this discussion is actually that Navnløs made one particularly useful contribution to the article on Lords of Chaos (book), which is nothing else then a (quite bad) attempt to incorporate Black Metal into some kind of fascism. With the current work done by User:Dbachmann on Nazi satanism I migh actually continue to work on that topic.
Anyway, this current case in question is problematic because we don't have TWO completely reliable sources and because the status of the RECORD LABEL wish pubslished the two albums of the band is not clear. According to User:Stormie, the label Modern Invasion, which released the two albums of this band, "is one of the bigger and longer-established independent Australian metal labels". This would make Bestial Warlust notable according to pararaph 5 of WP:MUSIC. Although we have the AMG page, WHICH SAYS THAT THIS BAND WAS RATHER IMPORTANT, and which is 1 definitely reliable source. The reliability of other sources could be discussed, but I guess that there would bo more that are reliable enough. (I'm out of time, but I can add more on Monday.) Zara1709 10:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that merely being listed on AMG is not an indicator of notability, but the article on there that describes them as a band of note within their subgenre means that this meets criteria #7 of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil 23:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Lankivell and previous discussion. —Moondyne 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Garrie. Twenty Years 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment let this be over once and for all:
  • [4] "Notorious Melbourne Black Doom band"
  • [5] "Bestial Warlust was one of the pioneers of Australian black metal"
  • [6] "One of Australia's first black metal bands of note, the wonderfully named Bestial Warlust arguably still qualify as one of its most extreme ever."
  • [7] "It isn't usual for an australian band to have recognition over here in the old continent (also in France)"
  • [8] "Why do you think BESTIAL WARLUST has such a cult status over here in Europe?" ... "BESTIAL WARLUST were one of the first satanic Black Metal bands to come through the Australian Scene. It was a big eye-opener for Modern Invasion and the whole Metal thing here"
  • [9] "The band became known as one of the most extreme bands of Australia."
  • They are mentioned in the book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture by Natalie J. Purcell [10] "Significant Australian bands like ... Bestial Warlust"
  • They were "popular" before internet was commonplace, but still have plenty of websites covering BW information.
  • Their label features notable bands Ulver, Scarve, Lord, Dungeon and Chalice
  • They meet point 6 through Deströyer 666 and 7 per above, and to less extent point 4 of WP:MUSIC
  • They have toured with notable bands like Incantation and Mayhem
Kameejl (Talk) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those links meet WP:RS. As for the other arguments, notability is not inherited. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book is and that should be enough to establish notability. Kameejl (Talk) 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are found and added, as fails WP:MUSIC in current state. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Peter Fleet 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Black metal is a niche genre so to expect it to easily pass WP:MUSIC is ridiculous. I don't know of the band but they are probably notable within the black metal scene and should be kept.--E tac 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not only do I say keep per all of Kameejl's sources, but I would like to point out that Scarian wanted this page deleted because it needed "mutliple" sources and only had the AMG source. Well even if all of Kameejl's sources don't count, the one from the Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture book does count, so that's already two sources. Also, even if some of those websites don't meet wikipedia's criterion for being reliable it must mean something that there are manty websites saying how notable the band is, even if the websites dont meet all criterion. Also, the band is related to Destroyer 666 and just for that alone it is notable. And its obviously a notable band in Australia, and Australians use the english wikipedia. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask that this deletion be voided per WP:SNOW as I added the Death Metal Music source in to the article and Scarian only wanted this article deleted for a lack of multiple sources. Now it has multiple sources. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having multiple sources was only one reason. There are multiple reasons raised above for deletion, friend. But the most likely outcome will be: No consensus reached. ScarianTalk 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per beast. Couldn't help but notice this page as the same person who created it keeps bothering me, or is responsible for it. Anyways, anyone who is familiar with the black metal scene, and I understand its a quite underground scene, knows Bestial Warlust. Of course it's going to be hard to prove sources and what not for any black metal band, because of their underground nature. That doesn't stop a lot of black metal bands from having articles on wikipedia. Many times these bm bands are a lot less notable than Bestial Warlust. Just puttin' it out there. Deathbringer from the Sky (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing Admin: This user has been accused of sockpuppetry in the past in conjunction with User:Navnløs (Blizzard Beast) and I recommend that his !vote be looked upon with some scepticism. ScarianTalk 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would write more on this, but currently NPOV issues have erupted at Germanic Neopaganism and are likely to take up all my ressources. As far as I see it we have at least two reliable sources here (AMG and the one book), as mentioned on this discussion page. I would like to remind everyone that these need to be worked into the article. I would do it myself, but as I said, there are other issues that I consider more important. Zara1709 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, As per Kameejl. That really does settle the issue. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:BAND notability guidelines - being part of an underground scene which receives little or no mainstream attention doesn't actually disqualify it, and the book reference if not already in the article should be there. Orderinchaos 11:47, 7 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 Spartaz Humbug! 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Cyrodiil[edit]

Locations in Cyrodiil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article should be integrated into the Cyrodiil article. Peter1968 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep-"trasncluding" all the reasons for keep given by the various people in the exactly similar articles above. The editors seem to have gotten tired trying to address this long series of nominations, Its much harder to reply intelligently than to use the same identical copy-and-paste argument for deletion. In brief, a notable element of a notable game. Wouldnt apply to minor details within the region--this is the way to do the article--the specialized wiki gets the ones on the true details. DGG (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for the thousandth time, notability is determined by referencing, not by assertions of notability. There are either references, which make articles, or no references and no articles due to lack of verification. I'm sorry if we can't just take you and others at your word, but there needs to be real referencing to withdraw these nominations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we", Judgesurreal777? You speak for nobody but yourself. Everybody here should speak for themselves. All you're doing is subverting your aims with egotism. Peter1968 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I am wrong? You will take his word that something is notable with no proof? Ok, then I will speak for wikipedians who understand policy, is that better? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... since it's NOT a notable topic in real life. Notability doesn't just roll down the mountain like that. It may be notable in the game, and the game may be notable, but the two do not equal 'real life' notability. It belongs in the Elder Scrolls wiki. Epthorn (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until real sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:17, 8 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. Waggers (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul: Kıyamet Vakti[edit]

İstanbul: Kıyamet Vakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied before. No assertion of significance, all references appear to be from primary sources. Dougie WII (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless expanded to a proper article, showing notability during AFD period. Peterkingiron 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are so many unnotable MMORPGs out there; WP articles on them should start with WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 7 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. --Oxymoron83 08:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerfell[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable independent sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Though asserting notability through reliable sources is not exactly the right term, I see no independent sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, could you please talyor the comments to the specific article involved? DGG (talk) 02:35, 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. --Oxymoron83 08:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedra[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out-of-universe. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:07, 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 no consensus. The article should be rewritten to remove the 'in universe' style, and I'm one of the many who has never heard of or played Elder Scrolls, but good arguments are made to keep the article. I don't see a consensus either way at this time. KrakatoaKatie 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamriel[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, as all those seemingly well cited paragraphs with inline citations are just links to fan sites, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather Weak Keep. I'm a little bit apprehensive about this - Tamriel is the scene of all of the Elder Scrolls games, and I really have no objection at all of having an article about the gameworld in itself. After all, we document other gameworlds adequately and there's really no problem with that. On the other hand, perhaps the article needs a reboot and severe cleanup, but I'm not sure if that requires deletion at all. Even if the article would be deleted as is, I'm not opposed to rebuilding it from scratch in an encyclopaedic manner. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your on to something; instead of having dozens of in universe articles about the world of Elder Scrolls, why not one good out of universe one? Judgesurreal777 16:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to more definite Keep, now that I have a little bit more coffee. Yup, I think this article is definitely salvageable and we can merge stuff here. UESP.net has its fine function, we have ours; They can cover little details, we can cover overviews. Everyone's happy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wwwwolf. —dv82matt 15:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on those who know the game, this is one of the articles on it which should be kept as being comprehensive. DGG (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the issue of the nomination, which is its lack of notability, and thus verification, through reliable sourcing. You can't argue for keeping it if you can't show it has notability. Judgesurreal777 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on the part of the nominator would be helpful to understand where others are coming from on this. Rigidly applying an idea of notability based on refrences would result in deleting many unquestionably notable articles and also creating many unnotable articles simply because references meeting WP:RS have been turned up. On another note the idea expressed in the rationale that the information in this article is duplicative seems manifestly bogus. Duplicative with what? —dv82matt 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment-"transcluding" all the reasons for keep given by the various people in the exactly similar articles above. The editors seem to have gotten tired trying to address this long series of nominations, Its much harder to reply intelligently than to use the same identical copy-and-paste argument for deletion. In brief, a notable element of a notable game. Wouldnt apply to minor details within the region--this is the way to do the articles on subject like this--the specialized wiki gets the ones on the true details. Thats the sort of content not notable enough for articles. This general one certainly is. DGG (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how its notable through providing reliable out of universe referencing establishing notability, we can't just take your word for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm getting very tired with this oh-so-common misconception that WP:N and WP:FICT - guidelines meant for keeping out small mods, fanfiction and random players - forbid subpages of any kind, when they do nothing of the sort. When it is impossible to contain an encyclopedic overview in one article, notability guidelines actually allow a split: "[where subpages are split for reasons of styling or length], the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article" (WP:FICT#Notable topics point 2). This correlates with WP:SIZE, an official site accessibility policy, which encourages splits of large topics. The more astute may notice that the notability guidelines demand proof of notability for entire topics, not articles - and we know from WP:FA and WP:FT's completely seperate existences that these are not the same. This is an encyclopedia, we're supposed to write a comprehensive account of a topic (WP:WIAFA, point 1b), not just parrot national news. And I've stopped bothering addressing the usual unsubstantiated gameguide allegations that always get thrown in every gaming AfD. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All articles, including subpages, must follow and fulfill wikipedia guidelines, including WP:FICTION and verification. Wikipedia does not forbid subpages, in fact the Development and re-rating of Elder Scrolls Oblivion are now Featured articles, but that is because they more than satisfy the other wikipedia criteria, as this and all sub articles must. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines say all topics, not articles, and WP:V concerns are reasons for cleanup, not deletion (this is far from inherently unverifiable). You're evading the point; this page should not be judged seperately from it's parent topic. Enforcing a standard like that effectively does ban subpages and is directly at odds with WP:SIZE. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article." (WP:N, lede paragraph). It only applies at the article level. DGG (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is ambiguous - it can be taken to mean either way, but I'm not referring to that anyway. It's entirely appropriate to write about the setting and characters of a piece of fiction, and WP:FICT has provision for splits when these sections become too long. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia Guideline are that, guidelines, Judge you're following the rules religiously, not to mention the same two sets of rules. This could turn into an argument consisting of people pulling out sections of Wikipedia rules that follow their cause, but that would be stupid. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly use those criteria to argue an article cannot be judged with those criteria. The article fails them, and needs to be improved or deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're still evading the point. This page should not be judged as seperate from its parents and siblings. Simply reasserting your position doesn't make any difference. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would read the nominating statement, there is a very big issue for this article to still pass the mustard on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on nominations and many arguments in other AFDs above. Wikipedia is not a game guide, period. External sources- like those found on the universe of the Lord of the Rings, for example- establish notability. Fan sites and in-universe sources do not. This and other topics should be either cut down and moved to the game page or deleted. Epthorn (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By Your standard Orc (Middle-earth) isn't notable. It doesn't have that many references, and those references are mostly book sources of Tolkien's letters. That isn't an outside source, it's straight from Tolkien's writing material. If that is acceptable then so is this.TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orcs are notable, cf this article: Ryan J.S. 1966. German mythology applied. The extension of the literary folk memory. Folklore 77:45-59.
They are real sources, can you explain what makes them fake? Imperial Libarary is a collection of in-game texts, not speculative in any way therefore isn't typical fan site garbage.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this discussion isn't a vote, how about you outline why you think this appears to be strictly a game guide and then we'll discuss it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, except for the first sentence, the entire article is written in-universe, which I don't agree with as an encyclopedic article. This therefore is a description of the game as defined by it plot, characters, etc. Refering to policy WP:NOT#GUIDE (not a manual to things, WP:NOT#PLOT (not a summary of fictional writings), therefore, I continue with my belief that it should be deleted. Mbisanz (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, that isn't a deletion worthy flaw. Articles that are written in-universe aren't supposed to be deleted, they're supposed to be fixed. Even I agree it should be less in-universe but let's be productive and fix it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, within the context of the video-gaming community, I do not believe this particular item in this particular game rises to the level of notability, regardless of how it is written. Now if there was say a particularly violent weapon in this game that caused a senator to hold hearings on it OR if this world was layed out using some new technique in video game technology, then maybe, and even then it would be a stretch for me. Mbisanz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the setting for a very poular video game series starting in 1994. Settings are about as notable as they get. As for this game getting senators pissed off, it has so if you want some links I'll show you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, the setting of the game would be covered here [11] to the extent that is necessary. That page is niether overly long or congested to cover a reasonable section about the layout of the game. Yes, senators may be ticked about the GAME, but not this FEATURE of the game. Mbisanz (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody thinks that link suffices, even the nominator, a new article devoted to the world of the elder scrolls would be necessary. Let me tell you now though, detail isn't frowned upon and it isn't necessarily fancruft. For example Argonian discusses the finer points of argonian culture, it isn't close to being as notable as this article and yet remains because it is a well formed article. If we could turn every one of these article into a high quality article using that page as template we would be getting somewhere. It would be for the betterment of Wikipedia, even though some would still complain about notability it wouldn't matter and never does when it comes to a good article.TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that would depend on sourcing if there is such a thing. And Argonian at least has some notability to claim for its own, even though it is small. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the notability guideline are guidelines intended to be flexible--when it is clear something is notable, we can interpret them accordingly. The sufficient available fan sources in tis case are acceptable for the purpose.08:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that are not, as a million fan sites do not always mean some kind of encyclopedic notability. And flexibility is usually given to articles that have demonstrated they have some notable referencing somewhere, not to ones that have demonstrated none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the rules are not flexible. That isn't true, Wikipedia policy is as flexible and forgiving as anything I've seen. The rules are meant to give a sort of template of what Wikipedia wants its articles to all eventually look like, it isn't some strict set of policy as WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY will tell you.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case why should the article be given "flexiblity" when there has been not one reference found to establish notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't give it flexibility, the rule is flexible, as in there is no one firm set of policy for what should be done in this case. Notability rules are disputed and it's only one rule, you can't just shut down an article because it isn't notable enough for you. I guarantee you that notability could be established through a reference found on the net. I don't see why you think there would be no notable references on the web when it is the setting of a 13 year series. Just tell me what kind notability link you're looking for and I'll find it.TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for fiction has only been "disputed" by you and User:DGG as of a day or so ago, and such efforts to dilute Wikipedias encyclopedic standards will not succeed. Now please stop pretending WP:FICTION doesn't exist and either find references or stop arguing about it, it is pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it's actually the first thing you see when you open WP:FICTION. TostitosAreGross (talk) 18:58, 9 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. --Oxymoron83 09:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mankar Camoran[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No out-of-universe perspective, no real-world notability. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 16:19, 4 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. Secret account 23:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Morrowind[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Morrowind. —dv82matt 14:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles about the characters in notable video games are pretty standard fodder for Wikipedia. —dv82matt 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game is notable, true, but the question at hand is for this article, and it has not yet established its own notability. Judgesurreal777 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you peruse the previous AFD? Not saying that consensus can't change but the consensus was that it was a notable article then. —dv82matt 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there was no proof then, and there has been no proof established this time either. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus, that is the burden that must be met. This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on your part would be helpful for you to understand where others are coming from on this. Rigidly applying an idea of notability based on refrences would result in deleting many unquestionably notable articles and also creating many unnotable articles simply because references meeting WP:RS have been turned up. On another note the idea expressed in the rationale that the information in this article is duplicative seems manifestly bogus. Duplicative with what? I agree that wikipedia doen't need two of these articles so if you can point to where it is all duplicated I will agree to deleting one of the instances. —dv82matt 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Combination articles like this are the preferred way to go, rather than articles on the individual characters. Possible over-quick nomination. It is required to link to the earlier afds, so i wonder if the nom has even read the article--especially as nothing in the nomination refers to it specifically.04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Why would we merge it, as it has no notability or references? There would be little point to combine it if it has no encyclopedic value, that's why its up for deletion. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the idea is to merge into it, not to merge it. That the characters in general of a major game are notable can not just be dismissed by saying it has "no encyclopedic content". I can make that assertion about any article. Nonencyclopedic seems to equal idontlikeit. 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I think I have been very clear about what unencyclopedic means; fails notability and verifiability. If it passes them, it is encyclopedic. Plot repetition on its own is not encyclopedic, but that teamed with critical analysis equals encyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of characters is not the same as a discussion of plot. We have a practice that an article should be more than a plot summary, but that should not be used to delete all articles about fiction. There is no requirement that articles in WP in general contain "critical analysis" -- the description of significant cultural and other material is encyclopedic.DGG (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those were merely suggestions of the type of information required by WP:FICTION, I am attempting to explain it to you and others who do not understand that simple plot repetition is entirely insufficient. Judgesurreal777 08:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I do not understand that a comprehensive collection from a different point of view than plot is a repetition--you would limit us to one article about each major work.DGG (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles you would keep are as "major" as you say they are, you surely should be able to produce the not yet found references that this article so desperately needs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand why you want to delete individual articles on small details of a fictional universe containing a lot of in-game trivia but why oppose all of these articles? Character lists are a perfectly normal practice on Wikipedia. And yes these articles need a lot of work, but after they are properly sourced they can be included. Why do the endless episode and character lists (there are even weapon lists...) on Star Trek characters still exist? I personally don't like Star Trek and I don't want to know what happend in the gazillionth season in episode 65, but that doesn't mean it might or might not be notable. Your proposed mass deletions (you're - solely it seems - involved in quite a lot of them) come a across as being a bit unconstructive. Why not improve and reduce the articles instead of completely deleting them? mensch • t 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For every article I propose to delete, even more are created, so I am not exactly decimating Wikipedia by getting ride of these articles. Its a normal practice, but you will see the vast majority of these articles are not notable, and only a few, such as Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and the Featured article on the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, have enough material to constitute an encyclopedic article. That is the standard we are shooting for, so we are deleting ones that show they have no hope. To understand why it doesn't have hope, read this WP:FICTION. Judgesurreal777 16:57, 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. --Oxymoron83 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major regions of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

Major regions of The Elder Scrolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:51, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements of Morrowind[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mages' Guild[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:14, 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 Keep arguments are a mostly taken from arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. The arguments to delete are rooted in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrodiil[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a large amount of content on a notable game. -Senori (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But wikipedia isn't a game guide...Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article isn't a "gameguide", it's a gazetteer for a location within a very popular game franchise. I think it should be kept and the Locations in Cyrodiil article be merged into this one. Peter1968 (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...what? Wikipedia also isn't a travel pamphlet for fictional locations.Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is encyclopedic about a "gazetteer for a location within a very popular game"? Wikipedia ought not to be a Elder Scrolls wiki mirror site. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Note I have restored this comment after it was deleted by Peter1968. Pete.Hurd 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as I still feel that these things (AfDs) should be a pure vote on whether an article remains on Wikipedia, not a place to argue and bicker about each person's opinion on said article. That's why I deleted your comment. Am I trying to keep things simple here? Yep, guilty as charged. Peter1968 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no non in-game content, no sources other than the game and a fansite. Here is a much more appropriate place for contributing to a Free Content article on Elder Scrolls locations. --Stormie (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more notable than some of the other provinces of Tamriel as it is the setting of the fourth game in the series. —dv82matt 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But still not notable, this article needs some references to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since Pete.Hurd believes that AFD's are a discussion arena, and not a place to vote on something, let me weigh in. It's a video game - I don't know where the reference is now that Wikipedia has turned into a policy-ridden mess, but there was/is an underlying principle that video games were self-evident insofar as sourcing material went. If you wanted sources, you'd buy the damned thing and play it for yourself to see them. Video games aren't usually as the Bible or The Simpsons about which many books and concordances have been written. Video games are almost always their own source. Yes, there are exceptions (Ultimas, Doom, Quake, etc). As for the other discussion that WP duplicates a lot of what UESP has - that's an extremely weak argument - that one thing is already found in one place so it's needless to repeat it elsewhere. WP itself is copied, mirrored and adapted (freely and legally) by many places. Who are *you* to decide that the public should have lesser chances of finding genuine information about features in a genuine product. It's an extremely paternalistic and self-defeating argument. The Elder Scrolls games are not minor products with an obscure fan-base. Au contraire - they've sold millions and have an extremely active player base. I'll declare now that the articles are as notable as they come when it comes to computer products and more notable than many. Again, sources - especially the ones that WP often requires - are going to be difficult to obtain. It's the nature of the beast. Peter1968 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but by that criteria many unquestionably notable articles would be deleted. That the references are not considered ideal is not a strong argument in favor of deletion. You should probably have tagged the article as having poor refrences or brought the problem up on the talk page rather than nominating it for deletion. —dv82matt 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem is notability, of which the article has none. It has no real references, and thus cannot be Verified, which is a criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 22:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an important locale, albeit fake. Why not delete all movie pages since you could say "this isn't IMDB"?—Zeppelin462 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great argument, delete all articles.... by the way, references are the basis for having an article on Wikipedia; if you have it, you are notable. By definition, notable things have references. And also the argument isn't that the references are "poor", there are none! Judgesurreal777 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great argument indeed. The Zeppelin user states "delete all movies" - you stated "delete all articles" in response. Excellent strawman argument there - putting things into people's mouths and all that. If you want to get your point across, objectivity is king, not logical fallacies. Peter1968 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recheck the article. It does have some refrences, though I agree they are not ideal. —dv82matt 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please point them out, you are referring to real world ones right? Judgesurreal777 21:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Do you mean to say that you think the references themselves are fictional? They are of course all "real world" references. —dv82matt 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Peter doesn't seem to get the point of my argument whatsoever. The strawman argument works well here, as this could be attributed to all movie pages and whatnot. I am not putting words in to people's mouths, but rather giving them something similar to compare, there in hopefully changing someone's mind.Zeppelin462 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, read carefully what I wrote...again. I was taking *your* side. Who did I reply to? You or Judgesurreal? There you go then...Peter1968 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article does not have any connection with our universe, meaning the world is not significantly affected by cyrodiil. Just replace this page with a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki, and we're done. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask then - should we remove everything that isn't connected with our universe from Wikipedia? That means everything make believe and imaginary, fictional and so forth. That covers everything from Hogan's Heroes to Debbie does Dallas essentially. Where do we draw the line? Peter1968 07:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everything fictional should be deleted, but articles like this one have no relativity in our universe. It needs to relate to something in our universe, like have references from a 3rd party source that isn't just a fan site. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The history of our world is not significantly affected by the goings-on in any fiction. That does not mean that fictional settings or characters are not notable. Like all culture, it affects the way we think and play--games have always been a notable part of civilization. DGG (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is exceedingly clear you have no understanding of WP:FICTION, and it is critical if you are going to continue participating in these discussions for you to understand it. The policy says that for something to be encyclopedic, it has to have some degree of notability outside of just the game. This includes developer interviews, design sketches, notability in the popular culture such as a reference in a SNL sketch or a parody by someone. If an article, such as this one, has none of those things, it lacks notability, and shouldn't have its own article. Judgesurreal777 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who's on a crusade then? Peter1968 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one! We just want policy followed. If that bothers people, by all means, take it up with the policy pages, I'm sure they would be willing to debate notability all day long. Judgesurreal777 03:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This conversation is frustrating as it is inevitably fractured across several of these contested AFDs. I think a more nuanced view of notability on the part of the nominator would be helpful to understand where others are coming from on this. Rigidly applying an idea of notability based on refrences would result in deleting many unquestionably notable articles and also creating many unnotable articles simply because references meeting WP:RS have been turned up. On another note the idea expressed in the rationale that the information in this article is duplicative seems manifestly bogus. Duplicative with what? —dv82matt 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we should be nuanced, and ignore policies of wikipedia? We should be lenient, when those who want to keep this article demonstrate not one reference, but instead of finding any attack the integrity of those who follow policy? I don't think so. Judgesurreal777 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our guidelines and even our policies are meant to be interpreted flexibly, according to particular cases and common sense. Our core values are fixed--material must be verified. That is not arguable. But how it is to be verified is not a core value--its a practice of ours, and can be interpreted as necessary. WP is not a straight-jacket. In this case, the material is documented adequately by the primary sources. That wouldnt be enough for all articles, but it is for this. Even the old guideline about primary sources -- and it was never more than a guideline--made an exception for the description of fiction--and it is now no longer even the undisputed consensus. I think it will end up as either an essay, or a rejected guideline when the current discussions are over. But by any reasonable standard of how to discuss this type of subject, this is acceptable. DGG (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Judgesurreal777, I don't mean to attack your integrity at all and if I've come across that way then I apologise. I realize that it takes a bit of gumption to nominate articles for AFD and a thick skin to deal with the flak. I don't think we should ignore Wikipedia policies but I also don't think we should be a slave to them. Improving Wikipedia should be the main focus and reasonable people can disagree about how best to do that. —dv82matt 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Judgesurreal777. Did you read my diatribe above re: the self-sourcing that is inherent in video games? Like I wrote - I'm not sure if the guideline (yes, policies here are guidelines, not absolute rules) still exists, but there did exist a principle where video games were their own source. As for your crusade (yes, I will name it that from available evidence) to have a bunch of articles deleted because they violate what you obviously perceive to be inviolate rules, let me point you in the direction of this lovely policy. This Cyrodiil article is well written and illustrates its subject matter excellently and I believe WP would be a worse off place without it. Peter1968 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You will all be happy to learn that two articles that were AFD'd have demonstrated notability and I have withdrawn...as you see, this process is also at times constructive, just like Featured Article Review many times sees an article transformed into a fantastic one. I know it stirs controversy to have these articles deleted, but if you look at how amazing some of our Featured and Good articles are, you will see why these policies are in place, and how these article have no hope of attaining that level of development. True, many can be brought back in some form, such as these 80+ Elder Scrolls article will probably come back as to articles; "Universe of the Elder Scrolls series", and if they are lucky, "Characters of the Elder Scrolls series", and Wikipedia will be much better for it. But there is no need to keep these articles, which fail our policies and do not add anything to the encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't add anything to the encyclopedia - in your opinion and that of a few others. Yes, there is a distinction. Peter1968 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in the "Opinion" of Wikipedia, as it doesn't meet the criterias for notability or verification. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has some references, an information base to prove it's right. Also WAY more notable then any other in-universe article as it is useful and relevant to millions of consumers.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say its notable, you have to provide out of universe references to SHOW it is notable, otherwise what you said is just your opinion, and we need more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of how easy it would be to establish your "notability" to cyrodiil and Morrowind, because they are settings and actually get mentioned in news articles. [12] This is a link that mentions cyrodiil exists and it isn't a fan site. TostitosAreGross (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we know it exists in the game, that's not the issue. The issue is we need development type information I have already outlined, we don't just need an assertion that it exists at all, we need to know its important. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are You kidding me, I couldn't find a Wikipedia page out there that would fall under your guidelines, what do you want New York Times Front Page CYROD117 15 1mper7AnT!!1! Just give me a clear cut example, a link to something that establishes notability to something (let's try other then master chief).TostitosAreGross (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... just like all these other articles, it is a very nice gameguide and belongs on another wiki, but not wikiPEDIA as it fails to (even try and) establish real world notability as set forth in consensus guidelines. Epthorn (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable; cruft. SharkD (talk) 18:40, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Rock, Morrowind[edit]

Raven Rock, Morrowind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I just don't see how a small fictional town in an expansion pack to a game passes encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. Banish this article to The Elder Scrolls wiki where it may live out its days in all it's unread glory. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not show that this location is notable outside the Elder Scrolls. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question why didnt somebody merge this rather than waste all the effort in bringing it here? We have enough ones that do need discussion. DGG (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger would have been a waste of time; since this is just plot repetition and thus unencyclopedic, why would we fill another article with junk it doesn't need? Judgesurreal777 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a non-notable fictional location. RFerreira 08:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vvardenfell[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Morrowind (province). —dv82matt 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vivec, Morrowind[edit]

Vivec, Morrowind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. This article is all "in universe" meaning that there is no content what-so-ever which might be of any use or interest, or encyclopedic value to someone in *this* universe. The Elder Scrolls wiki has a total of 9,663 articles, it seems that a large proportion of them are also over here. Those few that have encyclopedic content, meeting WP:N using WP:RS and are written with reference to meaning in this universe, ought to be kept. The others (such as this one) that are simply game cruft ought to be over there where WP:N does not apply. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability out of universe, create a soft redirect to the Elder Scrolls Wiki. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:20, 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 keep. Sources appear skimpy but there. Character's appearance on the cover of the Wall Street Journal, October 16, 1997 (assuming the accuracy of this secondary reference) is a WP:RS of good quality. Pigman☿ 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Postal Dude (Postal)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable main character of two video games and a film. A quick google search for interviews brings up information on inspiration and development. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then add them. I (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few for now to show notability. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 10:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just discovered this article yesterday (I'm a fan of the Postal series) and I saw how extremely crappy it was and was going to rewrite it, but today it got nominated for deletion. I think that's the best solution probably, this article is so horrible and rank. It can be redone some other time, perhaps. HOORAY TO SUPER VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Postal Dude is a very notable video game character. Not only is he a character for a fairly popular video game franchise he is soon going to be the star of a Uwe Boll movie. Just because there is no real world info backing him up doesn't mean you can't find any. As Bill up there stated a simple Google search yields results. Rgoodermote  23:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep probably WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no reliable sources to establish real-world notability. — Coren (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have clear guidelines for fictional characters. The emphasis needs to be on real-world significance. This does not aspire to that standard and should thus be deleted or redirected to the game. Eusebeus 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Postal Dude is no diffrent the Mario or Solid Snake. They have their own articels why can't the Postal Dude - Mr.NorCal55 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they don't matter in this discussion. I (talk) December 4, 2007
  • I'm conflicted. The article that would grant any character notability doesn't seem to be from a reliable source, from what I can tell. However, the other sources do talk about him, and although no single source would grant notability, I am choosing to view all of the sources in concert something that indicates notability. I also think that there is a good chance that there will be some sources that will grant rock-solid notability eventually. So, consider this a less than 100% support. I (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is it that is from an unreliable source. Perhaps I can find a replacement. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable was a bad term. I am referring to this article. It's not neccesarily unreliable, but it's not from something independant of the subject (it appears to be a fansite to me). If that article had been written by a website that was not involved in the game, it would be an excellent source. I (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a newsletter from the makers of the game so the information is reliable. I wouldn't say it matters too much if the bulk of the development information comes from the makers directly (similar to DVD commentaries for TV shows for example). IMO it's the Gill connection especially which makes the character notable as his admiration for the character has been reported on many news wesbites. Also the character is significantly mentioned whenever the game is discussed by independent publications. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information in that article is reliable, hence my earlier comment about poor choice of words. It doesn't grant notability, however. I (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that, I was confirming that the information was reliable as you didn't know the source. I also know that it is secondary sources that indicate notability which is why I brought the other parts of the article into the discussion rather than focus on the development information. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, broad, although maybe not in-depth coverage, is still enough. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just enough refs to establish real world notability. RMHED (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The part on real life people imitating him is most-notable. Mbisanz (talk) 00:55, 9 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 88[edit]

NGC 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article in it's current form has no written text whatsoever. I was thinking about readding the speedy deletion tag (this time CSD A3), but I rather choose this way since I don't want to harass the article with speedy deletion tags. User Doe ☻T ☼C 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Created earlier today (November 29 at 20:34), nominated 22:20, what time is it now? Since it's usually five days before a delete, and since the author may be planning to write more, drawing from the link, I don't think this is a speedy or a snowball. Mandsford (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just added a 2 sentence intro to the stub. I'll try to expand from available sources later tonight. NGC 88 is a verifiable galaxy. Unless the article is a duplicate, I suggest keeping it. (No vote yet). • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've got List of NGC objects, if there's really and truly insufficient content for an article it can just be redirected there (or rather to one of its sub-lists). But that's clearly not the case here. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now it has some written text and would probably qualify as a galaxy-stub. My reasoning does not apply any longer. I hereby take the nomination back and I hope this will become a great article :-) Regards User Doe ☻T ☼C 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as nominator has withdrawn, no-one else has voted to delete, and there is no reason to delete this stub article on a well-known galaxy. Spacepotato (talk) 00:34, 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 per consensus and added references. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken (young gay)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang or idiom guide. The article also gives not reliable sources with which to verify the information within and there is no assertation of notability. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Perhaps you should have taken any number of steps to improve the article before going to AfD? Really, this term has a long currency in the LGBT community (mainly gay men but not exclusively), and similar to Fruit (slang) has been used in many variations like chicken-plucker, chicken hawk, etc. and generally refers to someone considered younger and sexually attainable. It will take some digging but an initial search shows some promise on google, 600+ on google books and 9000+ entries in Google scholar. If needed I'll consider doing an overhaul but would prefer not having to do another of these with such a short time frame. Benjiboi 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Twink. The term is already mentioned on that page, and they are essentially synonymous. Queerudite (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly but I think both terms have notability and I believe twink replaced chicken but I could be wrong. Hopefully between the two articles we could find out. Benjiboi 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This term has a long history in the gay community, at least since the 60s, and is the counterpart to Chicken hawk (an older gay man who chases after young guys). While Twink may have surpassed this term, it is still valid, and a rich encyclopedic entry can come if allowed to grow. Jeffpw (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or merge with Twink. Bytebear (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This belongs in wiktionary (and anything not already there can be transferred), not wikipedia. The word and meaning are already noted in Polari. Notability of a word is not ascertained by seeing how often it is used - that would make "the" the most notable word in the language. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep... my view tilts slightly towards merge, for the moment in any case. As the terms, although agreeably with a difference, is only a minor difference, and are very similar... I do not however think the article should be deleted. It should certainly be kept in at least one form or another, gathering from the references that it in fact does have some place here. However, if kept, the differences between the two terms must be clearly defined on both pages. Iamandrewrice 14:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original stub paints itself into the definition corner, but it can be much more than a definition. Chicken (and Chicken hawk) describe a sub rosa part gay community with often negative connotations. The term predates Stonewall, possibly back to late 1940s. Twink is not the same thing, merging with 'chicken' makes as much sense as merging chick (young woman) with bimbo. This term needs more than just a dictionary defintion, it needs context and history that Wikitionary can not give it. Jacksinterweb 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as quite well-know phrase used in many motion pictures, novels, etc. I'll work on it, too, this weekend. Bearian 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know to someone unfamiliar with the term it may seem like something that can be handled with a merge or wikitionary entry, but it certainly has potential to be an article. It had quite a bit of notoriety in early 70s in the media (Tom Snyder did several shows about it for NBC and KNBC). I had forgotten about the term until it made the headlines again with the Mark Foley Scandal in 2006, with Foley being labeled a "chicken hawk" GptVestal 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chickenhawk already has a seperate article. [[Guest9999 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
That doesn't make much of an argument against "chicken" and seems to bolster its being a "keep." I think part of the problem is that this article's stub seems to be hastily done and leaves a lot to be desired, and I certainly don't fault its nomination. If this survives the AfD hopefully something will emerge to satisfy all parties! GptVestal 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is not synonymous with twink, although there is some overlap, and it definitely should not be merged with twink. In fact, chicken as a synonym for twink has been {{fact}} tagged since July 2007 (by me) in the twink article, and I would have removed it soon, as it's been four months and no citations have been provided, and I dispute it's connection. From the Twink discussion page, see my comments on chicken vs. twink here. Chicken has the connotation of an underage boy, something not normally ascribed to a twink. A quintessential twink in terms of looks is Jesse McCartney, now 20, for example, or other young male actors from TV teen drama shows, such as The O.C. or Dawson's Creek. The gay porn actor Brent Corrigan is also called a twink, and has appeared in porn films so described. Chicken isn't used as much anymore, but it was for some time, together with the term chicken hawk, an older man that preys on them. Twink does not have that association that I'm aware of. The term chicken has a rich history and deserves an article, as it's much more than a definition. However, I agree that the article, as it is, barely differentiates that term from twink, and has essentially no citations, so it needs much development. But again (as a needed sixth pillar to WP) needs improvement does not equal needs deletion. See Chickenhawk (sexuality) for more, including the citations, as they apply to this discussion, and see this citation especially: chicken (fr naut [from nautical] chicken = a young recruit // sl [slang] usu [usually] in negative context as “You’re no spring chicken”) 1. any boy under the age of consent, heterosexual, fair of face, and unfamiliar with homosexuality “So many chickens were flapping around that I thought we were touring Colonel Sander’s (sic) plantation” 2. juvenile, youthful, young-looking. Syn: chicken-looking (“You’re chicken-looking enough to pose for Maypo cereal boxes”); tender 3. (rare, kwn LV [known in Las Vegas], mid ’60s) to [sodomize] a pretty boy. From Gay Talk: A (Sometimes Outrageous) Dictionary of Gay Slang [13]. I think we want to be careful to not conflate the connotations of chicken with twink, as there are major differences between them. I agree with the arguments by Benjiboi, Jeffpw, Jacksinterweb, Bearian, and GptVestal. — Becksguy 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a good idea to jump on things before they have had a chance to evolve. It can always be deleted a month from now if it turns out to be trash. Haiduc 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Becksguy. "Chicken" refers to under-age males and correlates with "Chickenhawk" which is an of-age male who "goes after chicken". "Twink" is an of-age male who looks under-age, ie: a 20 year old that looks 16 as Becksguy gave an example of Jess McCartney and especially Brent Corrigan. -- ALLSTARecho 08:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chickenhawk (sexuality) - it seems to make sense to consider those two terms together as they are intrinsically linked. There is room for an encyclopedic article here and Twink is not a synonym but I think Chicken and Chickenhawk should be discussed alongside each other to avoid duplication. WjBscribe 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully disagree as I'm still digging through possibly etymologies. Once this article is sorted perhaps, but I think that this article should focus on chicken only as gay slang whereas chicken hawk could cover all slang usages (gay and non-gay as well) with the two articles cross-referencing as appropriate. Benjiboi 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to reconcile various etymology routes and am working through cuckold in the 1600's as old man young woman thing who she is later called a prostitute and it seems most words for prostitutes became slurs against gay men (presumably the fae ones) and I'm tring to take the concise route but good luck with all that. Benjiboi 22:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references now added and continue to be. Think we already have enough now to keep the article Whitstable 16:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well-established term --Icarus (Hi!) 11:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It helps to explain Chicken in this specific context, to those who may have head the term, but not understood it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyJacobson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 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 keep. John254 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yew-Kwang Ng[edit]

Yew-Kwang Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete for {{db-bio}}. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - I don't understand why this is marked for deletion. The economist has many ghits. While the article may have some less notable sections (esp the 2nd paragraph), the person himself is notable and the article asserts its notability near the end of the article. It just needs some cleanup. Billscottbob 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual has s non-trivial 750+ Google Scholar hits and is well-knoown for contributions in a welfare economics -- an important field but not easy to say something interesting, new and true about -- and mesoeconomics, the latter of which he largely helped make theoretically respectable. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is one of the most respected economists in Australia today. While his work is complex, his extensive contribution to economics is undeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profb21 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can not figure out why the anon placed the speedy, the article was not quite as full, but still clearly adequate for notability DGG (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. RFerreira 08:09, 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. John254 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child World[edit]

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

Unsourced so presumably original research. Notability isn't established and its hard to avoid commenting that Wikipedia is not a place to record details of every failed business unless it has enduring notability that has been established in multiple independent reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Children's Palace had outlets in a lot of states back 20 years ago, so it was a fairly notable failure. There are probably articles about why it failed and Toys 'R Us didn't. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Child World was a big player in the industry before it failed. Its troubles, failed rescue, and demise was widely reported in the business press at the time. Here's just one article [14]. I'll try a deeper search later. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widespread toy store chain which once had several locations throughout the U.S. Sources do exist; I'll see if I can add anything. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep, once was a major competitor to Toys "R" Us. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep, was a major player at the time. Asserts notability, easily checked, please consider {{unreferenced}} and similar in future as AFD is not cleanup. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is. Material written without sources can only be original research unless the material is directly taken from a reference. Spartaz Humbug! 09:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable as a national chain. RFerreira 08:09, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Cobra[edit]

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

Marvell Comic character. There don't seem to be independent reliable sources on the character. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:52, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft characters[edit]

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

With the previous Article for Deletion, the closing admin has stated to "Clean [List of Warcraft characters article] up, or I reckon the next discussion will be a delete." So far, there has been no improvements whatsoever on the issues mentioned in the previous AfD. The only thing that was successfully done was to barely thin-out the content, despite sourcing being the serious issue.

Along with the previously mentioned unnotable cruft, this article also has serious issues with having absolutely no sources whatsoever and has been comprised pretty much entirely of plot summaries.

With an article of such a size and topic (it is currently 106KB, only losing 21KB from the previous AfD), having sources is pretty much required. However, not only are there no sources, there are no third-party sources either to establish any notability it has to the real world. With this, anyone who does not play nor read the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.

The article appears to be enormously composed of cruft which has a tendency to attract original research, something unwelcome to Wikipedia.

Also, nearly if not all characters on this list has plot summaries regarding them, which is what Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.

I would prefer that participants of this AfD avoid using the argument that other stuff exists as a lot have previously argued, as the articles they have used for examples may also not be noteworthy and deserving of an AfD and should not be used as a precedent. Also, another argument to avoid is to point out that Warcraft is notable, making this article notable. However, notability is not inherited, and the article should meet the requirements to instate its own notability rather than relying on Warcraft's notability.

Almost a month has passed since the closing of the previous Article for Deletion with a declaration of having to clean up and abide by notability guidelines, yet nothing has been done to add sources to indicate its notability. With this, it can be assumed that without another Articles for deletion nomination, the article would have continued to remain at such a poor, unacceptable state. IAmSasori (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has had a chance to assert any kind of notability, and if none can be asserted, its just plot repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warcraft articles have been under constant siege since the ending of the last AfD, which kinda limits the manpower and morale available, which in turn weakens the deduction that absence of proof equals proof of abscence. This is, however, irrelevant: the previous AfD ended less than one month ago. I have never seen the line drawn low enough to allow single-article AfD's to be repeated that fast, and request an immediate speedy close. --Kizor (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it has ended less than a month ago, it was definitely started more than a month ago, and that prevents it from being seen as "quickly" repeated. IAmSasori (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to note that the closing admin of the previous AfD Haemo has stated that he "would strongly suggest that users work on this aspect, and pronto, because articles cannot persist indefinitely on such a basis." I'm sure that nearly a month is more time than "pronto," suggesting this renomination should remain open. IAmSasori (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, There is only so much that can be said about the Warcraft game that is of real encyclopedic relevance to this universe. This article, and the others that are entirely about trivia of in-game experience cannot achieve encyclopedic notability. There is a Warcraft wiki it's exactly the place that articles like this one belong. Those that remain in an encyclopedia have to have connection, meaning, analysis and context to *this* world running throughout them. This has, and can have, none because the topic has no real world relevance. Other aspects of the Warcraft games *do* have real world relvance, but this does not, and ought to be deleted from here (and recreated on the warcraft wiki if it doesn't exist there, which I very much doubt). Wikipedia is not a Warcraft wiki mirrorsite. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reason listed in nomination. We were told a month ago that all the issues with the article could be fixed within an hour. A ton of edits have been made to the article since then, yet it still fails all core policies. Ridernyc (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start fresh, I'm sure a list of Warcraft characters can be done well but it would be best to start from scratch, rather than work off this. A big recommendation would be to establish more stringent guidelines for inclusion in the list, focusing on only the most major characters. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no improvement made to the problems raised in the previous AfD (although there has been plenty of polishing of the cruft). Take it to WoWWiki, there's no reliably sourced real-world info here, just a lot of in-game cruft. --Stormie (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominee. Weirdy Talk 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to enforce style guidelines, go to wowwiki like I do for detailed info. Because it just doesn't follow consensus of style on Wikipedia for lists, right now, most of the article fits Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. If you want to keep it, should be in these formats like List_of_notable_San_Diegans, List of computer scientists, List_of_operating_systems, List of star trek characters. "List of blah blah" are acceptable in Wikipedia so long the content in them is brief and consistent. I suggest the editors of this article review style guidelines to save from imminent deletion and remember save a copy. See WP:LISTV (non-official), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) (official) to reach acceptable consensus. I suggest also maybe use footnotes to cut down on the repetition the references to books, games, etc that adds to the problems of article size. - 6etonyourfeet (talk?) 09:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is, in my opinion, a cheap nom. It is not fair to have a 2nd AfD so soon (twice in 5 weeks). Insufficient time has been allowed for the editors involved to improve the article per WP:HEY. (It probably should be deleted as cruft, but I won't close this AfD.) Bearian 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if even one source had been added I would agree with you. It's clear there are no sources for this information. And that the article will never have any real world context.Ridernyc 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If the article was improving but still far from perfect, I would agree that this is too soon. But there have been ~150 edits since then, none of them adding sources, none of them establishing real-world notability. I think it's clear that nobody is willing or able to do anything to correct the problems with this article. --Stormie 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A cheap nomination, or one showing a lack of good faith, would be if you had found a few good references to establish notability and we said "Delete anyway!". There is nothing to assume good faith about in fact, the weight is on the keepers to assert it has ANY notability. Judgesurreal777 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Start Fresh. I definitely agree with Axem Titanium. This seems to deserve an article in my opinion, but it just needs to be totally redone. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. This article needs to have a fresh start and need to be redone, so I agree with Axem Titanium. Greg Jones II 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. It is time to wipe the slate clean. RFerreira 08:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know why the closing admin did not delete this article last time around, as his closing comments were: "I would note that this totally fails notability guidelines. Hopefully this time the closing admin will be brave enough to delete the article as the lack of verifiable primary sources makes cleanup impossible. --Gavin Collins 09:19, 4 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 speedy delete as with others created in this batch, no real claim of importance. W.marsh 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Greenslade[edit]

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

Non-notable player who plays for a non-notable team, who are themselves at AfD along with all other player articles from the same club. Ref (chew)(do) 21:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Schlich[edit]

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

Was labelled as "unsourced" and of doubtful notability more than a month ago, no edits since then. The very model of a minor general (talk) 21:08, 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. Spebi 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta-v (physics)[edit]

Delta-v (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than defining that delta v is the difference in v, which delta something always is (see delta (letter)) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep just because the article only currently includes this (it's a stub), the article may eventually contain other information, such as the relationship between delta-v and accident damage. The concept crops up in a number of different scenarios, and relates to other areas.WolfKeeper (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about that. As Δv == <a>, acceleration seems the quantity of intrest. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peak acceleration is somewhat important in accident damage but the thing is, delta-v determines the energy lost in any inelastic collision, and that energy has to go towards deformation and so forth. Also, another use is in gravity assist. There the delta-v is easy to calculate but the instantaneous quantity is reasonably messy. I could probably come up with others; and widen it to include relativistic delta-v effects.WolfKeeper (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no way it can be expanded beyond a simple unnecessary definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to velocity. This seems to me a page that doesn't need to exist. Is the change in the notable concept of velocity itself notable? Yes, and we have acceleration for that. If there is any content worth merging, it can be sent there. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acceleration is a rate of change, which can vary over time in messy ways. In quite a few cases we don't want to know about the messy instantaneous details, we can black box an interaction and use delta-v instead. It is actually quite useful.WolfKeeper (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a whole seperate page is needed to describe it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have location, distance, Displacement (vector), speed, velocity, and acceleration. To me, it seems like Delta-V is an acceptable topic, seeing as what else we have. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having small pages makes it easier to understand for viewers in elementary physics. As above IP user said, there seems to be a precedent for having many pages around this area. However, as "delta-v" is an obscure title, it should be ensured that the article does not become orphaned or lonely.
  • Keep - An issue of note is that one other very common use of "delta-v" exists (See: Delta-v). That usage does not exactly match what a physicist might expect. This is clarified at Delta-v (disambiguation). (sdsds - talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to velocity. Beast of traal T C _ 16:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)beast of traal[reply]
  • Keep - Delta-v is a separate concept from either acceleration or velocity, so redirecting there would be factually wrong. It's a term that isn't used very often, but it is used. Also this might fall under WP:IAR. Reasoning goes like this. Student sees delta-v mentioned in their physics text book. Student tries to look it up on Wikipedia. If the only related meaning for delta-v that the student can find is the astrodynamics delta-v, then Wikipedia has not served the student very well. In a sense, the astrodynamics delta-v page needs the physics delta-v page to contrast the meanings of the two terms. Mdmkolbe 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hopefully the student will notice For other uses, see Delta-v (disambiguation). Which can clarify the issue with or without an actual article. Someguy1221 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The disambiguation page doesn't reference velocity or acceleration and neither of those address the concept of (physics) delta-v, so I don't see how that could clarify the issue. The only way I could imagine that clarifying the issue is by leaving an entry on the disambiguation, but that seems kind of silly if we delete the article because it's not notable. Mdmkolbe 22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is on the disambiguation. Delta-v, a mathematical symbol representing a change in velocity as a scalar or vector quantity Someguy1221 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I completely agree. But that line is only on there as a link to Delta-v (physics). A vote to delete this article is a vote to remove that line from the disambiguation page. Thus why I don't think this article needs to be deleted. Mdmkolbe 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is actually no such requirement. The disambigation page can still identify ΔV as a common expression for change in velocity, even if there is no remaining article on that specific meaning of the term. Someguy1221 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Under that understanding, I'll have to say that I'm starting to move to the fence. The disambiguation page is probably able to contain the essence of everything said in the Delta-v (physics) page. On the other hand, having a Delta-v (physics) page doesn't really hurt Wikipedia and it may help in that it can spell out things like the integral form for delta-v which would probably be too much content for the disambiguation page. I know my calculus well enough that the integral form is almost redundant, but that is not the case for everyone. Mdmkolbe 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems useful for students of elementary physics. Joshua Davis 18:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WolfKeeper. For example, see: [15] Dhaluza (talk) 03:00, 5 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 speedy keep, WP:CRYSTAL states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," and there is absolutely no question that this is the case here - the article has 18 references, and obviously the film would merit an article if it has already been released. --Stormie (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess and the Frog[edit]

The Princess and the Frog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

delete wp:crystal Byon44 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC) — Byon44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - well sourced and well confirmed as a major release from a major studio. The controversy surrounding it certainly adds to that notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Fox. Georgia guy (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close. Only edits that the nom have made as of the time of my edit of this AFD show that this AFD is the ONLY edit the user has made. WP:CRYSTAL has nothing to do with this, this is not crystalballery as this is well cited, in progress, and noted by Disney studios as in production. I smell a WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources about this film. And Variety has confirmed the release. All were referenced in the article prior to nom. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Smashville. DavidJ710| talk 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest snowball closing it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing That Wouldn't Die[edit]

The Thing That Wouldn't Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This episode does not conform to the standards set by WP:EPISODE, so it currently fails WP:N. There is no assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and find sources. It's the series finale, surely there are articles about it. It needs sourcing and a shortening of the plot description, of course. Pinball22 (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus and because it is the series finale which lends weight and value to notability. I also will sound like a broken record here, but a drive to improve all the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles came to a sudden halt when TTN started autonomously deleted, redirecting, and trying to delete all the articles thus derailing any improvement efforts underway. They will be improved on given time and without any continued disruptive POV edits from TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aren't nominators supposed to do some research before they come here? Using Newsbank, I found a number of reviews pertaining to this specific episode:
  • Lynn Elber. "3RD ROCK' BLASTS OFF IN FAMILIAR, KOOKY STYLE". The Belleville (IL) News-Democrat. 22 May 2001.
  • Alan Pergament. "'3RD ROCK' FINALE GOES THUD". The Buffalo News. 22 May 2001.
  • Phil Rosenthal. "`3rd Rock' takes flight; Elvis Costello serenades visitors home". Chicago Sun-Times. 22 May 2001.
  • Steve Johnson. "In `Third Rock' finale, Elvis helps them leave". Chicago Tribune. 22 May 2001.
  • Mike Duffy. "SILLY AND SUBLIME, ALIENS BLAST OFF FROM PLANET TV". Detroit Free Press. 22 May 2001.
That should be more than enough to satisfy WP:NOTE requirements. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Morphh (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete and all the above arguments are junk. The article fails the real-world standard for fictional material per WP:FICT; it is WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA. Garnering reviews is hardly an assertion of notability that requires an individual article beyond the main one on the series itself. Where is the real-world context that makes this worth retaining on its own? Eusebeus 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're arguing on the notability of the subject, not the present state of the article. The article can always be improved. I don't understand how multiple episode-specific reviews are not good enough (and the ones I posted above are only a sample of what I found). WP:N says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This episode clearly passes that test. Stop moving the goal posts. Zagalejo^^^ 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a series finale, this episode draw substantial reliable and verifiable coverage, all of which satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments, established sources, WP:EPISODE's direct recommendation against deletion, and based on past assertions by nominator and Eusebeus that redirects are a better solution than deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I see a big fat plot summary and a cast list; the externs are to notoriously non-reliable sources. --Jack Merridew 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are cleanup issues. You haven't given a valid reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have; "clean" those concerns up and you have nothing left.
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. — WP:V#Burden of evidence
--Jack Merridew 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown that they exist. And now I just added some to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now on the basis that this is the final episode and seems to have garnered some non-trivial third-party reviews. I will switch to solid keep if sources have been added to the article, or to redirect if a lack of article improvement calls for another AfD in a few weeks/months. – sgeureka t•c 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we don't use AFD to force article cleanup. The sources exist, so the topic is notable. If no one has added the sources after a few months, you can go to the library and add them yourself. (I do intend to get to this article eventually, but there are hundreds of other articles I'd rather be working on, so it might be a while.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enforcing cleanup, but I am applying WP:EPISODE#Process. The article has only very little non-trivial real-world information, and no secondary sources at this point, so this episode should actually still be stuck at the "List of episodes" (or a Season page) point. If this doesn't change within a few weeks/months, then it can/should be redirected to the LoE until the info is finally added by someone. There is no reason to let this article violate WP:NOT#PLOT forever. – sgeureka t•c 20:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the rush to make this a redirect. A redirect is the lazy way out, isn't it? Most of the article's content would end up in the finished product anyway. The plot summary just needs a copyedit; it isn't long at all, especially for a two-part episode. Zagalejo^^^ 20:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are "a few weeks/months" really a rush? I have written FA material from scratch within three weeks, so writing a paragraph for production and one for reception shouldn't be that hard. Especially since notable topics have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources by definition. – sgeureka t•c 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's more than sufficient time for one article, but there are hundreds of other articles that need even more work, and I don't think this article is a top priority for anyone. Why not be patient? What happened to WP:TIND or WP:INSPECTOR? Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen and worked on a lot of episode articles, and giving indefinite development time to episode articles and being patient accomplishes little to nothing. Due to their nature, ep articles are doled out at a much(!) higher frequency than what effort can be put into them, leaving hundreds of extremely poor articles behind that likely no-one can or will ever bring in line with guidelines and policies. Obeying WP:EPISODE#Process however gets rid of this problem. If you (general you) cannot establish the notability (or the potential) at the point of article creation, don't start the article. There is userspace for article development. Redirected articles can be improved and resurrected. However, letting episode articles remain in a poor state forever just gives people the idea that that's what wikipedia wants an ep article to look like (see WP:FA and WP:GA for what's really desired). For everything else, there are fan wikis (which can then be linked from wikipedia if need be). – sgeureka t•c 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that sounds like a "Wikipedia isn't working"-style argument.... but whatever. I've added a few refs. It's not a FA, but I think it's improved. Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notable, it's verifiable, and it's culturally relevant. 'Nuff said. - Dravecky 20:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources demonstrate it meets notability and, with a little clean-up, it can easily meet WP:EPISODE. Ursasapien (talk) 04:11, 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 keep. Spebi 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waialua sugar mill[edit]

Waialua sugar mill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this notable or just an advert ? thisisace (talk) 20:21, 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. Spebi 04:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cuban Athletes[edit]

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

A category would be much, much better. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keepAlright, all i'm doing is making an article similiar to this for cuban athletes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Puerto_Rican_athletes . Any help would be appreciated. CubanoDios (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a Category:Cuban athletes. (see WP:CAT) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks really really empty, I guess I have my work cut out for me. CubanoDios (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once populated it can contain articles that can't be contained with a category (IE - red links). Lugnuts (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does seem to duplicate much that is in Category:Cuban athletes, but as Lugnuts noted, it could be useful for athletes without articles. Even more to the point, perhaps, is the editor's information that Puerto Rica has such a page. I checked a few others, completely randomly: Angola, Jamaica, Korea. Each had its own "List of Athletes". Seems standard. Tim Ross·talk 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies. Sloppy work on my part. I looked up "Category:Angolan athletes", etc. rather than "List of Angolan Athletes", etc. The comparable lists don't exist. Tim Ross·talk 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article of this kind are useful if they have red links. At present this has just one. Unless the list is populated with more red links before AFD closure, it should be deleted. Peterkingiron 23:13, 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 Speedy Deleted by user:Hmwith per A7, non admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OFF Rangers FC[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not satisfy notability criteria for football (soccer) in Ireland, being about a fans' team self-admittedly in the lower leagues of that country, however ambitious they might be. Ref (chew)(do) 20:13, 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 Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. Material not merged, as plot summary already exists. Those wishing to incorporate information from the history are welcome to do so, but please note source per WP:MERGE.. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Waldorf Must Pie![edit]

Blair Waldorf Must Pie! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does Not Agree. Every other episode has its own article. Unless you want to do something about those articles, this one stays as well for consistency. Butterfly0fdoom 11:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the old argument "if we keep that, we have to keep this". I'm afraid inclusion is not a reason for notability, and each article is assessed on its own merits. If you think WP:EPISODE does not apply to this particular article, can you provide any reason why? --Nehwyn 13:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you better start assessing other episode pages, because there's a lot of episode pages that lack such notability. Butterfly0fdoom 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've started already, but please keep in mind this debate is about this particular episode. --Nehwyn 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think it is obvious that WP:EPISODE should not apply to this unreferenced article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:EPISODE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article has a large recap from TV-guide - I would define that as significant coverage in a reliable source.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the article is a plot summary, and its claim to notability is an external link to... another plot summary? Sources are used to establish a claim to notability. A link to an external recap does establish that this episode has a plot, and that's all good an well, but what claim to notability does it have? Has it won any award, or raised attention over a contentious issue? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For which claim? Award? Contentious content? Cost? (à la Lost pilot) Just having a plot is not a claim to notability; in fact, the article being just a plot summary is in direct violation of WP:NOT. And please note - multiple reliable sources are required, that's the "primary notability criterion". --Nehwyn (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • As I said over on the other AfD (sigh...) I'd prefer to keep, as I have a very hard time believing that these episodes are somehow less notable than most of the episodes of all these other shows. That said, rather than delete entirely, I would merge and redirect content back into the list of Gossip Girl episodes page, which already exists -- people are going to be looking for these pages as it's a current show. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not acceptable in this type of debate. However, I would be amenable to a merge and redirect solution in List of Gossip Girl episodes. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]
It is a common misperception that the argument you cite -- that what else exists should not affect AfD debates -- is a policy or guideline. It is, in fact, neither of those things, and I think it is totally reasonable to look at precedent when discussing notability. Notability is inherently a contextual matter, and for to pull a handful of episodes out of a particular series to delete is confusing. Why are these specially less notable than the others? -- phoebe/(talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no misperception - the argument in question is not a policy, simply a fallacy in deletion debates. An individual deletion debate ask the question: why is this particular article (in this case, episode) notable enough to get its own page? Why does it stick out from the others? Because if it doesn't, it goes in the "List of...", that being what WP:EPISODE is for (and that is a guideline). Each episode is assessed separatedly; inclusion is not a reason for notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see, I'd phrase it slightly differently; an AfD to my mind judges whether a particular article should be in Wikipedia or not, which depends on a whole host of factors, notability being one factor and our scope of coverage being another, equally important guideline. At least, that's the opinion I've come to over the years... :) at any rate, I still don't think they're hurting anyone; the usual sources probably apply (TV magazines and whatnot); and a good compromise solution would be to redirect them back to the list of episodes, which should be beefed up. If the show stays popular, they'll almost certainly turn back into articles at some point. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's scope of coverage is not infinite; it has a limit, and that limit is what we call "notability". This is covered in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specifically has a section about articles of the kind we're discussing here, i.e. a plot summary. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails to establish notability. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument above is completely unconvincing to me, and TV_Guide is not an appropriate source for notability. Epthorn (talk) 08:29, 8 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. John254 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Gannon[edit]

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

Recreation of previously speedy deletion of non-notable biography. UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:NOTE, assuming the clubs he played for were indeed "fully professional", as I expect they are. The article does need expansion and referencing, of course. PKT (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets and frankly far exceeds the notability standards of WP:SPORT. Played in the top level of Irish football. Set a goal scoring record in the First Division (which I gather was actually the second level of Irish football, but still notable). --Stormie (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How on earth did this get speedied when it already stated that this player played for the most successful club in Irish footballing history? Well exceeds the requirements of WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the reason is that the article gave an impression that Gannon barely broke into the top football level in Ireland. On top of that, Shamrock Rovers are not well known in the world. The article could have been more explicit about notability. PKT 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PKT et al. I've tagged and stubbed it. Bearian 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what on earth is this doing in AfD? The man made two appearances for the single most successful and notable team in Ireland. Therefore his notability should be unquestioned. Ref (chew)(do) 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played at the top level in ROI. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Played at professional level in Ireland. Jonesy702 18:55, 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 No consensus --JForget 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mary Albright[edit]

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

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) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I pointed out in the Harry Solomon AfD, these characters are notable. Another analogy if you will, if TTN has his way, Newman from Seinfeld would be a non-notable character...as would Wilson from Home Improvement. These articles were undergoing improvements (like all 3rd Rock from the Sun), however, this has had to be put on hold to combat the constant POV agenda and vandal edits by TTN with his urgency to delete. Without constant redirecting or deleting of the articles, the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles will be improved upon and developed. Mary Albright was one of the major characters in the sitcom. --Maniwar (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Maniwar, if you have some assertion of notability I'd be willing to change my mind, but the wp:FICT guidelines require real-world importance, as well as reliable out-of-universe sources for their notability. I'm undecided how I feel about current episode, character and other fictional object 'cleanups' but in many cases I just don't see enough reliable information that relates to the real world to make a valid article, such as this one. 129.89.68.218 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to 3rd Rock from the Sun. Unsourced article falls well short of WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Seinfeld analogy above. JJL (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with Harry Solomon, real-world info does exist. If someone wants to improve the article, here are a couple of newspaper articles that provide some substantial behind-the-scenes info (there are probably others, but I have more AFDs to get to):
  • Peter Marks. "Curtin closes another hit season on '3rd Rock'". Boston Herald. 18 May 1997.
  • John Crook. "LITHGOW AND CURTIN STAR IN QUIRKY NBC SITCOM". The Stuart (Fla) News. 7 January 1996. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect to main series article. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Real world information is a core principle and we have policies that determine this. And trivial mention in a newspaper review does not constitute the assertion of real-world notability. Eusebeus 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have access to those articles? They do not simply contain "trivial mentions" of the character. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Magson[edit]

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

Content is basically empty, and provides no reasoning for the creation of the page. The one link provided is self-written, and therefore may not comply with verifiability policy. Was going to nominate for speedy deletion, but thought to get consensus here first. — Rudget contributions 19:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article should not be deleted as there is no reason whatsoever to delete it. The author is adequately well known and the article is non-promotional. Obviously more information needs to be added over time by other users, but the article is a start. Will add some more links and a reasoning for creation on the article's discussion page. --Hontogaichiban (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was promotional. It's just that there is a distinct lack of reliable, independent sources that can assert the claims, at present there is one, by the author. The ISBN's check out, but I know many authors that have published books and haven't got articles on the wiki. — Rudget contributions 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, hopefully this has now been satisfactorly rectified.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article proves ISBN's for the books Magson has written, thereby adding at least a basic start of verifiability. Looks like a valid stub to me. —Scott5114↗ 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how intolerant Wikipedia has become in recent years, it seems stubs are no longer acceptable, I thought the idea of wikipedia was collaborative efforts not one person writing the whole article, which it seems is what has to happen for any article to even be started without being speedily deleted.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article seems to me to comply perfectly well with these two criteria.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - This appears to be a re-creation of an article I nominated for speedy deletion yesterday and which I assume was deleted ! thisisace (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a reason to delete the article.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that Hontogaichiban above is the author of both articles ! thisisace (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although an article that is speedied as failing A7 may be once more speedied under A7 if recreated identically or substantially (if, that it, the failure to assert notability is not addressed), speedy deletion is not undertaken consistent with a deletion discussion and so a recreated speedy is not a G4 candidate. In any case, where an XfD is ongoing and has not readily produced a clear consensus for deletion, it is, on the whole, a rather bad idea to speedy the underlying page. Joe 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems notable in the UK. He even has a few audio books available on UK Amazon. Hontogaichiban maybe consider the {{underconstruction}} template in the future. Gtstricky (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Keep - The article is only 2 days old. It is too early to judge whether it meets A7. Mdmkolbe 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And just how long should we wait for the article to indicate why its subject is important or significant as specified by WP:CSD#A7? —141.156.234.101 18:32, 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 Merge to NewsRadio season 3. Article does not demonstrate stand-alone notability. Some of this information is already present there. Summary material missing has been incorporated. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space (NewsRadio episode)[edit]

Space (NewsRadio episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This episode does not conform to the standards set by WP:EPISODE, so it currently fails WP:N. There is no assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge - Sorry, but I don't feel this is a "good faith" AfD. The article was merged by TTN some time back, a very brief back-and-forth revert occured between him and another editor, then that editor added some material to the article. It sat as is for two weeks until a "prod" template was added earlier today. The "prod" was removed (by me), and TTN promptly registered the AfD request. I think the more appropriate process would be to rexamine the article in terms of merging, per the review process. --Ckatzchatspy 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, there were a total of three NewsRadio articles where the same editor reverted TTN's redirects at the same time. With both of the other articles, TTN just restored the redirect - after nominating this article for deletion. I see no reason to single this article out for deletion, especially given the oft-stated rationale that merges are better because they preserve the article history. --Ckatzchatspy 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review process has been dead for quite some time, so this is the only other venue available. TTN (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those will also be nominated for deletion if they are brought back. The reason this one is up for deletion is because I knew that it wouldn't stay redirected, though the others are wild cards. Of course keeping the history is better, but when fans get in the way, this is the only other option. TTN (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources demonstrating notability are found. Redirecting is pointless. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CKatz. --Maniwar (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fails WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. RMHED (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Three of the four "delete" supporters have used WP:EPISODE as their rationale for opposing the article. It should be noted that WP:EPISODE specifically states "Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research." As this article is neither "unverifiable" or "original research", the only option would be a redirect - not deletion. --Ckatzchatspy 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The review process was never strongly supported, and I doubt it could or will ever work. This process seems to work fine, redirect the article if that is contested bring it to AFD. There is a pretty clear consensus from recent AFD's that these articles are not appropriate for wikipedia. While I would like to see a better process for handling issues at this point AFD is the only way to handle issues without things getting lost in endless consensus debates. Ridernyc (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if there is a list of news radio episodes send it there. Ridernyc (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as above. Take your pick per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:EPISODES. It fails 'em all. Eusebeus 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep with no prejudice to a merge and/or redirect per WP:EPISODE's request not to AfD Will (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect to NewsRadio season 3, or keep if the DVD commentary track can serve as a secondary source to establish notability (other reliable sources probably exist, but not necessarily easily found online). DHowell 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... I'm not sure what sort of drama is going on with the editors regarding these episodes but this one simply fails to establish notability. It could be merged into a season page or recreated if notability is created/found, but currently there is nothing there. Epthorn (talk) 08:32, 8 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. One commenter suggested a merge, but no appropriate merge target was suggested (the main article of a university is not really the right place to discuss a criminal victim). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amadou Cisse (student)[edit]

Amadou Cisse (student) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable murder victim with some press coverage. Violates WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornixtalk 19:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really so important that it needs to be deleted now? Article does not seem to be a BLP, but I share your concern, as I expressed on the talk page after I created the article by request. Merge to article containing a "crime" section for the University of Chicago or Hyde Park, Chicago, which does not currently exist, and which is debated on the former's talk page. Until that such destination exists, this well-cited article is benign where it sits. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless a suitable merge can be found. We don't keep pseudo-bios like this. Although perhaps this is one for wikinews and not us--Docg 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a current affairs topic, not an encyclopedia article. From What Wikipedia is not:
Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
--Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why not merge? I know this can't be a seperate topic, but it's undoubtably an important milestone in the broad topic of University or Hyde Par crime. Incidentally, could some of the immediatists here vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler; an article about a still-living figure who has less notable coverage about him than Cisse here? Cool Hand Luke 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newsworthy, but not encyclopedia material. Slideshow Bob (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the University of Chicago's page. The information is important as it may shift the university's security policy or may be needed for future reference.User: Mojojojo69 10:06, 4 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.

Elite Tower[edit]

The result was delete. Can be recreated when it becomes notable. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete another nn building under construction in Dubai Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 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. Reads like a case on a minor point of PA trusts and estates law. Absent some assertion of why the case is signficant, it seems to me that the delete argument is stronger.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re Keeler's Estate[edit]

In re Keeler's Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No indication of notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be a library of case law. PKT (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom. --Alfadog (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it falls out of the scope of our legal stuff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep as a perfectly good stub within the scope of WP:Law. I recall briefing it in Albany Law School as a leading precedent. It does not get that many Ghits, see [17]. Also, it's not cited in the text I use for my Wills Course (Brown, 3d ed.). So I'm not going to bother to rescue this one. Anyone else? Bearian 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the question for decision is notability. This is a question that needs answer from a Pennsylvania lawyer, which I am not. Peterkingiron 23:18, 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 Keep. The article is marked as a stub. Potential spam links were removed. The existence of the term is verifiable and the spelling is acceptable. Should be expanded, of course. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire troop[edit]

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

This article is weak, created solely as a vehicle for spam, and has a misspelled title adamrice (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Note: This was placed in error on the article talk page so I have moved it to the discussion page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - It's clearly marked as a stub so being weak isn't a problem. I don't see any spam in the article. But yes the title is probably misspelled. Mdmkolbe 17:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers[edit]

List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list has no refs or even a WP:LEAD and it's easily replaceable with categories. Funeral 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subjective topic and likely to attract spammy additions about non-notable or even phantom bands. PKT (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meaningless rock list. As stated above, there are categories that easily accommodate these acts. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above / no sources Think outside the box 13:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, BUT... all links must be checked so their articles actually stated hard rock or heavy metal. Also, this page needs to be moved to a better title.
  • Delete We have categories for this for this sort of thing, not articles. A1octopus 14:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Ofori-Twumasi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - not played in a fully professional league.

  • Delete. TerriersFan (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he can have an article if/when he plays for a professional team or is capped for Ghana. PKT (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original nominator. – PeeJay 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having played for a professional club or internationally for his full national side. Ref (chew)(do) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Have you guys missed the discussions on talk:WPF/Gavin Hoyte, WPF:Notability and AfD:Paul Rodgers? In case you've missed it we are building on a new criteria for notability, and the old requirement of professional league football is gone, making deleting articles referring to the old criteria entirely inappropriate. As for this case, I think he is notable as being a youth international for a big nation as England, including playing in the 2007 U-17 European Championship, and being contracted to such a big club as Chelsea. Sebisthlm 14:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when it's fully built and set in stone, then it'll be applied no doubt. In the meantime, my opinion is based on what is current policy. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have I missed the discussions referenced by Sebisthlm? Yes, yes I have missed them. I rely on Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidance. Look about halfway down, under the heading Athletes. PKT 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still a long way from meeting notability criteria. - fchd 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hasn't played in a pro league, doesn't have a squad number etc etc. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from not meeting the WP:BIO guideline of not having played in a fully professional league, a good informal test, in my view, is what would we be left with if this player's career ended tomorrow. In this case, an article about a youth player, who has not made any impression on the professional scene. That's not a notable sportsperson. --Malcolmxl5 14:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, at the moment I see nothing notable per WP:BIO standards. Punkmorten 20:06, 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. Tyrenius (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalon Goss[edit]

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

Photographer (and aspiring actress) sister of notable artist Bryten Goss—does not seem to be notable on her own. Article is almost all cruft (lists of works, patrons, exhibitions, etc—mostly unreferenced). The article's references consist of an article about her brother, and photos of her celebrity friends at an exhibition. Some COI exists as well, her mother edits here as Gosswriter. Precious Roy (talk) 17:11, 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 per consensus (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child-on-child sexual abuse[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Child-on-child sexual abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like original research and is entirely unnotable as a subject anyway. Any exploration of this issue should be at child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can't comment on original research right away, but the subject - disgusting though it is - is real and does happen, so I don't get what would make it entirely unnotable. --Kizor (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for its own article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The references section cites academic articles and a 137-page dissertation. Since this is significantly different from acts of pedophilia, I don't reject the possibility of it working better in its own article out of hand. Much of, say, psychological data on one would be inapplicable with the other - and mergers aren't an AfD issue, anyway.
As for original research, the article has multiple references that appear to cover most of the important statements, and some of the others are definitionally true. --Kizor (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the concept that is not notable. I mean who has heard of "Child-on-child sexual abuse"? Which is why the article is original research. We should not just go around creating concepts and then creating articles based on that. Thanks, SqueakBox
Comment "I haven't heard of it, therefore it's not notable" - are encyclopedias only for things you already know? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is slightly more complicated than that and really depends on our individual attitudes towards articles generally, for me this is just a fork and can be treated perfectly well at CSA and any similar forky concept, regardless of the subject matter, would be treated in the same way by me. Endless forking does not help our project or our coverage of one single topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fork, any more than an article on England would be a fork of Britain. Sadly there are plenty of cases and discussion of this topic. Nick mallory (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though a strange concept at first glance, sadly the numerous academic refs show it to be real. This phenomenon exists and is notable. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the notability standards by referencing several independent reliable sources. —Scott5114↗ 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Pol64 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you elaborate? Legitimus 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that as the nominator I was not clear in my reasoning as I can't think of any other explanation for this comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's asking Pol64 to elaborate. AfD isn't a vote, and simply saying "delete per nom" is usually ignored by the closing admin. All arguments are weighed up, instead of simple vote counting. I don't think there's any aspersion cast on your input, rather that he's asking Pol64 to put up an argument instead of a hand. Totnesmartin 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In many issues where lots of opinions are expressed to say one agrees with another opinion is in no way an excuse for someone with the opposing opinion to say that the opinion they oppose does not count. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Alright, don't put words in my mouth...keyboard...whatever. I wasn't undermining or saying it does not count. I was hoping for another take and/or wording of your position, the user's feelings, why he/she agrees with you. You have stated you opinion and its reasons, I have stated mine (below) and these other folks have stated theirs. If he/she does not want to elaborate, that's ok. Legitimus 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The CSA article specifies adult with minor, making this a different concept, though similar. I would also contend that because people have not heard of it despite it's obvious existence in medical literature, it makes for an greater reason to keep it, as a public service. Many people have never heard of Lymphangioleiomyomatosis either, but it is certainly notable. Legitimus (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If it has significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as shown in the references given, then it is notable. Subdolous (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Psychologically there can be other issues behind it, so the article may be added onto from here. Notable offshoot of sexual abuse - though statistically rare. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an 11-yo girl was raped by 8- and 9-yo boys recently.. so it does happen. [18] 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not look like OR and is referenced. Looks like it could fly if allowed to grow wings (AfD'ed after 2 days of life?). This disturbing occurrence may seem like an anathema to some people's world views, but it does happen and is notable as the comment above illustrates. Also, Keep as per Legitimus's comment about the heavy Adult -> Minor focus of the parent article. kitsune361 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the professional literature sexual assault and coercion between minors is relatively common. While there are obviously a number of shortcomings with the article at this early stage of it's conception, I think that it can be improved and expanded significantly with time. Albert Wincentz 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep or Merge with Redirect to child sexual abuse -- It would seem that child-on-child sexual abuse would fit as well under child sexual abuse as adult-child sexual abuse. Limiting the CSA article to adult-child only doesn't match the scope stated by the article title. However, this article seems to cover a notable topic and cites reliable sources for verification. My first instinct would be to keep, since we're not in danger of running out of electrons, but I could see merging, as long as the content were to be preserved.
Also informing my decision is the fact that the nominator has made no attempt to edit the article or discuss his concerns at its talk page. It's certainly within policy to only nominate for deletion, but it doesn't seem well in keeping with the idea of improving content by editing. I'd like to see the article, if kept, significantly expanded and focused more on its topic than on explaining child-child sexual abuse as a consequence of adult-child sexual abuse, to differentiate it from the CSA article (as written). So far, it appears that this AfD is headed into the snow. --Ssbohio 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hope this is rare, but the fact that four articles are cited means that this article cannot be dismissed as WP:OR. The article speaks of pre-pubescent abuse, whereas the main Child sex abuse article speaks ofadult on child abuse. Where does abuse by a pubescent youth on a (pre-pubescent) child get dealt with? Peterkingiron 23:28, 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 Keep. The information is verifiable and the group is reasonably notable on the local level. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Dane[edit]

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

Notability βcommand 16:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Local group, not notable beyond one county in Wisconsin. Pastordavid (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm local and I'm a bit on the fence if the argument is something like importance or impact, but this is the capital city of Wisconsin and arguably one of the most left-leaning enclaves in the U.S., and they easily meet ongoing coverage with plenty of results in Google Books and Google News Archive. It was also briefly part of a statewide reinstantiation of the statewide Progressive Party and the national New Party (USA). As such in a country of would-be progressive politicians they are one of the few that is actually functioning and getting people elected (as opposed to numerous municipal/local noisemaking pressure groups). --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability. Marlith T/C 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm local and I was the one who posted this because I was shocked that there wasn't already an entry for PD. It's probably the single-most successful progressive third-party in America today (and perhaps the only surviving branch of the New Party) in terms of elected officials. It currently controls the City Council Presidency and plenty of other local offices, and is widely referred to in the loca media as a bright-line; i.e. someone "is PD or is not PD". Basically, there is no way to understand Madison or Dane County politics without understanding Progressive Dane. Local media often say that there are two parties in Dane County: Progressive Dane and the Democratic Party. This John Nichols piece really sums up the case. Further, the article for Madison, WI Politics includes the obligatory reference to Progressive Dane and its recent legislative victories. --Politics608 | Talk 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick question, because I'm new at this. The article was first immediately nominated for speedy deletion, and that failed, and then was nominated for deletion, which I hope will fail, but in both cases was done so by somebody using TW. It looks to me like some sort of automated deletion-nominator (among other functions) - is that the case? Did it single out this article because it's a stub? I'm obviously willing to work on it, improve it, etc., but I hope that by this point the subject's notability isn't in question. Thanks for any advice. --Politics608 | Talk 16:22, 7 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 per consensus and added references (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Chitranjan Singh Ranawat[edit]

Chitranjan Singh Ranawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient showing and even assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, are all recipients of the Padma Bhushan notable and should all of them have Wikipedia articles? (It should be noted that currently, most of them don't; that doesn't mean that they shouldn't, but it does cast a major question as to whether the reception of the award is sufficient, in itself, to make the person notable.) --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dont understand your question. It's as equal as saying "He is a President of such and such country but is the Presidentship sufficient to ensure a Wikipedia article"?. I would say a civilian award of the highest order given to a person, makes him sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources to the article. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthe third-highest civilian honour in a contry of a billion people should make you notable. The fact that some other recipients don't have articles is neither here nor there. It just means Wikipedia hasn't got round to them yet. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ¿Amar៛. Hammer1980·talk 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner of an important award so clearly passes the standard for inclusion. There are plenty of winners of the George Cross too or Royal Navy ships and nobody would think of deleting those... Nick mallory (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am surprised this article has been nominated for deletion.The nominator's rationale "Insufficient showing and even assertion of notability" is plain rubbish.Notable indeed.Shyamsunder17:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Padma Bhushan = notable.Bakaman 01:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Totnesmartin and others, I would have to agree the person is indeed notable. RFerreira 08:08, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G5 (created by a banned user) by Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Maas[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable musician. Prod removed by creator. tomasz. 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not much of a claim to notability. More like a failed garage band. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; in fact this could have been speedily deleted. PKT (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. since the prod was removed, i assume the speedy would have been too, so i brought it here for consensus. tomasz. 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 - the article doesn't assert notability outside of playing a couple of clubs. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 per Tony Fox. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 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 Merge to Dupont Circle. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dupont Circle High Heel Race[edit]

Dupont Circle High Heel Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable event, not even worth merging into Dupont Circle. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dupont Circle. It has a number of sources, though none are solid silver. There is enough there for a footnote to the article on the area - though a standalone article would be excessive. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per SilkTork. This is one of those wacky things that makes Dupont Circle what it is, and it gets plenty of coverage for being wacky in an otherwise staid city, but I don't think it warrants its own article. Maralia (talk) 22:35, 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 per consensus (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thon Hotels[edit]

Thon Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non-notable hotel group Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per this, Thon Hotels is one of the largest hotel chains in Norway. Other searches in google revealed the same thing. Definitely notable -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep oddly enough I wrote the article on this chain's owner after someone claimed Wikipedia's English-bias would never allow an article on a guy whose claim to importance was being the richest man in Norway. It's stuck around. At any rate, this chain seems notable as a part of Thon's wealth and because it's the third-largest hotel chain in Norway. Might not seem like a claim of importance, but think of the bias issue... would we delete an article on Best Western because it was "only" #3 in America? --W.marsh 17:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article needs work, but I counted 54 properties in three countries, and that's plenty notable for me, regardless of who owns the chain. PKT (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some work, but subject appears notable enough. --DAJF (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, seems to be a fairly large chain with locations in Norway and two other countries. Article should be tagged for references. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The notion that this is a non-notable hotel group is just plain absurd. RFerreira 08:11, 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 --JForget 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture[edit]

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 secondary sources. The only potentially notable thing about this company can be its eQMS product, but i could only find it mentioned in press releases, which don't establish notability (per WP:ORG). If notability can be established with better sources, the article can be recreated. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardus Company[edit]

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

Company has no indication of notability. Google hits for products are scarce and concist mostly of press releases and directory entries.[19][20] Fails WP:CORP Fram (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sting_au Talk 09:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be deleted. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no reliable secondary sources per Fram above plus my own looking.[21] --A. B. (talk) 20:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Valentino[edit]

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

A terribly hush-hush photographer, a "cult pioneer" whose "compelling" works "are often difficult to acredit due to the fact he works under various pseudonyms and is, even by the standard of his contemporary Banksy very elusive and deliberately obscure". Well all right: Banksy's elusiveness does not detract from the notability of his work, and for that matter you can say exactly the same thing about Bill Shakespeare. Trouble is, that's where the resemblances end: with the possible exception of some minor celebs, the world seems to have taken no notice of Valentino's oeuvre. We see a notice advertising his exhibition, but no critical notice of it. We see what must be one of the least informative Amazon pages ever, for a book (about which we learn next to nothing) by one Angelo Valentino. And that's it. The cult pioneeringness, etc., is not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reliable evidence of notability. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You want obscurity, you've got it. Fails WP:N Xymmax (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and clean up all references to him recently placed on Wiki. We have serious doubts this person exists at all, let alone enough evidence for a Wiki article. And if the person so much wants obscurity, why is he someone trying so hard to convince us that he should have an article on Wiki? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? Delete as non-notable and, judging from the article, impossible to verify. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't you guys read the art press at all? Angelo Valentino is not a person, he does not exist. "He" is the name used by Banksy for photographic work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.127.137 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 November 2007
    • And where in the art press may we read this? -- Hoary 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article should be banished to the obscurity it so richly deserves. TheMindsEye 01:33, 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 Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. Material not merged, as plot summary already exists. Those wishing to incorporate information from the history are welcome to do so, but please note source per WP:MERGE. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventeen Candles[edit]

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

TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Fancruft, the same is true for the other articles on each episode of the series. PKT (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has a large recap from TV-guide - see external links - I would define that as significant coverage in a reliable source per WP:EPISODE.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a plot summary... and its reliable source confirming notability is an external plot summary? Please understand - a TV episode is not notable because it has a plot. An external source is used to verify a specific claim to notability - such as that it has won an award, or has raised debate over a contentious issue. A plot recap is not a claim to notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An episode recap can certainly be used as a source if the claim to notability is having a plot, yes. But having a plot is not a claim to notability. Other than that, so far there appears to be no claim particular to this episode. And please note - multiple reliable sources are required. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I'd prefer to keep; I have a very hard time believing that these episodes are somehow less notable than most of the episodes of all these other shows -- notability seems to have been stretched a fair amount when it comes to tv shows. That said, rather than delete entirely, I would merge and redirect content back into the list of Gossip Girl episodes page, which already exists -- people are going to be looking for these pages as it's a current show. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not acceptable in this type of debate. However, I would be amenable to a merge and redirect solution in List of Gossip Girl episodes. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:12, 6 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Caren[edit]

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

Tagged as having no sources since April 2007, although asserted there is no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. WebHamster 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even sourced, if the article is correct, he is a grad student and an assistant. Non-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:24, 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 redirect to The Bob & Tom Show. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Metcalf[edit]

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

DELETE and MERGE. NN radio personality, vanity and appears to fail WP:BIO Endless Dan 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry? The producer of B&T? Um, no. Speedy keep and close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, producer. Unless this article is just making things up. In which case it would be non-sense. Delete.--Endless Dan 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non notable producer unless some real sources can be found. --Stormbay 19:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect, nothing there to establish notability - I've barely heard of him and I listen to the show every morning. A redirect should probably be left in place; and keep in mind that if material is merged it cannot be deleted due to GFDL requirements (so "delete and merge" is nonsense). It can be expanded to an article later if sources are found. Looks like nothing really worth merging, but no reason not to have a redirect—Random832 15:51, 5 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Lee[edit]

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

DELETE and MERGE to . NN radio personality, appears to fail WP:BIO Endless Dan 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Non-notable radio personality? Hardly. The Bob & Tom Show, of which Kristi Lee is a long-time cast member, is a nationally syndicated program in major, medium, and small markets. The show is also the only five-time winner of the Marconi Award. Wikipedia is currently hosting articles about Bob Kevoian, Tom Griswold, and Chick McGee and should continue to host this article. If anything, all of these articles could be merged into the article about the show. If this argument sounds familiar, it is. I made the same case for retaining Chick McGee's article. I find it curious that the articls for Kevoian and Griswold have not been flagged for deletion. Spacini (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this person is not notable. While it's nice that the show has many accolades, the show is not what it being disputed. And Tom and Bob’s individual articles did not receive an AfD nom because they are hosts of this show and that asserts them notability. A radio producer asserts no notability. --Endless Dan 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • She's not "the producer," any more than Bablooey is. She's an on-air personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.6 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newsreader and personality of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Lee has about as much airtime as Kevoian and Griswold do; just because they are the designated hosts doesn't mean that Lee and McGee are any less important.—Scott5114↗ 20:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This person is a nationally known radio personality & touring comic. However pertinent information about her ex-spouse Adam Ritz MUST be included in the article. Why does this page seem to incite revert wars? Too many fanboys?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.121.73 (talk)
    • Still nothing that asserts notability.
  • KEEP. Your criteria for "notability" is too strict. The Bob & Tom Show is one of the most-listened-to nationally syndicated radio shows in the United States. Although the title is "Bob & Tom", the show has 4 people on it, who are equally unreplaceable. Given the number of low-level garage bands, minor authors, and inventors of strange arcane algorithms that still rate to be on Wikipedia, you HAVE to have a nationally-syndicated celebrity on there. Do a few Google searches yourself before you pick on her notability, you'll find her everywhere. You wouldn't delete Robin Quivers too, would you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.6 (talk)
  • Keep, is just as much a host of the show as Mr. Kevoian and Mr. Griswold; name not being on the marquee doesn't change that. —Random832 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable, for many of the reasons already stated.--Bedford (talk) 04:48, 8 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. Mercury 04:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chick McGee[edit]

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

DELETE and MERGE. NN radio personality, vanity and appears to fail WP:BIO Endless Dan 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Non-notable radio personality? Hardly. The Bob & Tom Show, of which Chick McGee is a long-time cast member, is a nationally syndicated program in major, medium, and small markets. The show is also the only five-time winner of the Marconi Award. Wikipedia is currently hosting articles about Bob Kevoian, Tom Griswold, and Kristi Lee and should continue to host this article. If anything, all of these articles could be merged into the article about the show.

Spacini (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this person is not notable. While it's nice that the show has acheived many accolades, the show is not what is being disputed. And Tom and Bob’s individual articles did not receive an AfD nom because they are hosts of this show and that asserts them notability. A radio sidekick asserts no notability. --Endless Dan 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't establish notability for this guy. Marconi awards are great; why is their no cite in the article explaining how he contributed to the show winning the awards? Reads like a resume, and with no sources is a BLP vio. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may need a little cleanup to make it not look like a resume. The article is about a nationally recognized radio personality, and belongs in Wikipedia. Vistro (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chick is essential to the show. wm (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.249.81 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep, is just as much a host of the show as Mr. Kevoian and Mr. Griswold; name not being on the marquee doesn't change that. He's also the _main_ host when they're away. —Random832 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons previously stated.--Bedford (talk) 04:54, 8 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, though the article evidently is much in need of expansion. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Dellaert[edit]

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

This article escapes A7 deletion for the professor's claim of a scientific discovery (which, for all I know, could be the most important development in robotics ever.) However, page still lacks reliable sources, so Delete, pending clarification, other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 14:15, 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. Although spitting is evidently practiced in pornography, consensus finds lack of verification of the existence of a clinical fetish. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spitting fetishism[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources to verify the existence of this. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge -- Definitely verifiable, though the content may be short enough to warrant becoming a subsection in a larger "fetish" article. With just one brief Google I turned up this entry at Informed Consent, and as a purveyor of porn I can tell you that it is common in BDSM porn, and particularly prevalent in FemDom or LezDom porn. With some further digging one should be able to find more sources to back this up, particularly if there are first-hand accounts out there (interviews and the like) which pass WP:V; porn stars are not shy about discussing fetishes, usually. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess I don't have to warn you about these example sites being explicit [22] [23]. --Easyas12c (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which would matter if it were being nominated for deletion due to notability issues. Nothing in WP:RS precludes those sites from verifying that the fetish does exist. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it does. Porn sites are not made for information and have absolutely no reputation for being truthful or accurate. The fact that the sites exist, I suppose, can be primary-sourced by the site itself, but that's as far as it goes. Any more interesting implication of the existence of the site would be WP:OR. Mangojuicetalk 14:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a merge and redirect with a similar article if anyone finds at least one reliable source documenting that spitting fetish even exists.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:09, 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, Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or redirect to Salirophila. The source Yukichigai found doesn't back up that spitting is a fetish, just that it's part of some BDSM activities. If this is even recognized at all it is surely a subfetish of Salirophilia. Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although "spitting" exists as a preference or pleasurable act to a minority of consumers of adult entertainment, I don't think that "spitting" has been recorded as an acute clinical fetish, or fetishized to any notable degree outside the US porn industry. The 'porn context' is not a comprehensive or established source of insight into fetishism, therefore the article should be deleted. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per Mangojuice (hmm...). Fetishes are notable by their recognition as such, and this is generally a medical/psychological issue. I see nothing that establishes such a known proclivity here. Epthorn (talk) 08:37, 8 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. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daggerfall, High Rock[edit]

Daggerfall, High Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:20, 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 keep. John254 04:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong)[edit]

Li Na (daughter of Mao Zedong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Li Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mao Zemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mao Zetan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mao Zehong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As much as I love the Chairman (he is the red sun in my heart), notability is not inherited. These members of his family are not individually notable since, judging from their stubby articles, their only claim to fame is their blood relation to Mao. However, I am no expert on Mao's family so if you think one of them is individually notable, please make a note of that and provide justification. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As much as I am not fond of the Chairman, any of his children are likely to have more than enough prominence during their lifetimes to warrant articles. While notability is not generally inherited as a rule, when one's father is the leader of the world's most populous nation, he will likely do things (directly and indirectly) to make them notable. Xoloz (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two issues - Mao's two brothers, important roles in the early struggles, as is said above. His sister and one of his two daughters, maybe not distinguised except as relatives.
  • But it is only 31 years since Mao's death. Slightly less time than between the fall of Napoleon and the unexpected rise of his nephew to supreme power in France. We also have Mussolini's grandaughter prominent in Italy. If they ever do allow open Western-style elections in China, the results might be a considerable surprise.--GwydionM (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Li Na and Li Min, who were members of national party congresses (a practical, if not legal, equivalent of a national legislature). I'm waffling on Zemin; his banking position may be notable given the parlous state of Chinese sovereignty at the time. The other two brothers do not seem particularly notable to me other than being famous in retrospect due to association (they may well have been elevated to the status of national heros/martyrs for the cause, but nothing is shown to say this). --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps an article specifically dedicated to Mao's various relatives is in order? One that is not just a simple list, but also gives a quick summary about each of his immediate family members like his wives, children, and any grandchildren. Or would that not be a notable topic? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would likely be beneficial. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Create an article on the relatives if you like. But I think those with their own entries should keep them, since they have or had a political relevance in their own right.--GwydionM 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Li Na deserves an article as the only child of Mao and Jiang Qing.217.42.13.36 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Li Na's story is relevant to scholars of Mao, but there isn't room for so much detail in Mao's own page. Also, although I accept the argument that the children of notable people aren't necessarily notable themselves, the child of such an exceptional couple may deserve special consideration. There are pictures of Mao with Li Min and Li Na, and anecdotes about them. Perhaps the articles could be added to.JaneGrey 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --DlaeThe Freudian Slip 19:36, 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 - I'm not sure about the copyright thing, but there's no notability here regardless.—Random832 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101 Damnations: Hellraisers of Rock[edit]

101 Damnations: Hellraisers of Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary list of music videos from a non-notable programme -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - pointless list. Also possibly breach of the channel's copyright. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable list. Isn't it copyvio to reproduce it completely like this? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:12, 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. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer "Junior" Jueco[edit]

Elmer "Junior" Jueco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was previously prodded and deprodded. Personally, I think notability isn't quite there. Best thing he's done is win Alaskan State Championships, which probably isn't notable enough. The following is copied from the talk page


It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern: Nobody cares about billiards players in Alaska.

I wish to respond to that comment. I disagree. I just think there is a lack of a web presence of Alaskan pool, as well as modern Alaskan culture overall. If someone isn't a pool player, one could say nobody cares about billiards players in Alaska or anywhere for that matter. But Alaska has the highest participation rate of pool players in the nation per capita (number of teams/leagues per population). Anchorage alone has well in excess of 100 teams.

Billiards is growing in popularity internationally as seen in the Phillipines and Taiwan, and many of their top players are listed in wikipedia. Do you think that nobody cares about billiards players in the Phillipines?

From Talk:Elmer_"Junior"_Jueco Montchav (talk) 00:51, 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, Davewild (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doubtful notability, per nomination, and lacks working references (ie, refs that don't require registration/login). Alaskan or not, there's no need for an article about him unless and until he wins some major tournaments. PKT (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. References do not have to be freely available online to count as verifiable. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, winning state championships is a fine accomplishment, but notability is doubtful even if this is a well-followed "sport" in Alaska. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 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 (then redirect) Nothing to merge, just unsourced statements. SkierRMH (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People = Shit[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources whatsoever, contains a lot of POV and original research, has never been released as a single of the band, has no won any particular awards. In other words, a "normal" track of an album, that does not need an article. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this track is not particularly notable as far as a Slipknot track goes (well, maybe apart from having an astonishingly bad title). Lankiveil (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete - It is not notable and there is no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect to the relevant album that this comes from. This individual track is not notable, other than its name contains scatological language. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the album. That is, if we find anything worthwhile to merge. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kronik Energy Drink[edit]

Kronik Energy Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Both the drink and the company seem to fail WP:CORP. No reliable independent sources are known; the sources given are the company's homepage and a user-generated content site. PROD was contested without comment. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as above. Drink is so non-notable we don't even know what company is behind it (by just reading the article, that is). Lankiveil (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources show notability, and I couldn't find any when I searched. It does taste good though :P Xymmax (talk) 15:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MariMar Ratings (Philippine TV series)[edit]

MariMar Ratings (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about the ratings of a Philippine TV show. I think that it is unecyclopedic and violates WP:N Lenticel (talk) 09:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at National Basketball Association Nielsen ratings. With that said, I still think a ratings log for a 5x-a-week TV series is a directory. --Howard the Duck 10:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Lankiveil (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: I think it passed WP:N...especially to fans of Marimar and it does make sense because its sourced. To the editor who had a bit hard time in making tables, sorry but it's not acceptable in wikipedia per above. It's totally not encyclopedic. It is also a different to that of NBA ratings... --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is an unecyclopedic article. It should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The source only refers to an "AGB-Nielsen" website, which is non-existent. Besides, most of the ratings posted in A LOT of Philippine TV shows were only cooked up by fanboys, unless cited to the weekly average postings of "Pep.ph" (Philippine Entertainment Portal). Starczamora 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The NBA telecasts are an institution by themselves, and since they've existed for quite a long time (and I daresay even about twice my age), their ratings may deserve serious study. Marimar the GMA bastardization adaptation, is just one of those ephemeral TV shows that GMA (and its rival ABS-CBN) are hyping up and would soon be forgotten. (Just tell me how many of us can consider Etherea as one such great TV show?) I don't think this show needs an article about its rating, but I do agree that including the weekly ratings is definitely overkill. --- Tito Pao 04:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is over... this should be closed as per WP:GLACIER. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 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 speedy delete. W.marsh 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Murphy[edit]

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

Irish football (soccer) player who plays in "the lower leagues of Cork football". Appears to be just a pub player (the only reference is to a "profile" on a website specifically devoted to pub football) and therefore extremely non-notable.

For the same reasons I also nominate Wayne Mullins, Colm O'Sullivan, Rob O'Donaghue and Brian Twomey
The reason the Carling website is used is due to the fact its a free website!
Im sure you will apprciate a new club has a tight budget, deleting this topic OFF Rangers FC and its players is not correct! OFF Rangers is infact a football club! - Scottyccfc
Comment Just because a football club exists does not mean that all its players are eligible for WP articles. Please read WP:N and WP:BIO to see the sort of level at which players have to have played before they can have an article (which these players are a million miles away from reaching and, let's be honest here, wil never ever reach) ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough but please dont delete the club, without getting into a big discussion why is someone not allowed to be a wiki just because his standard may not be that of another player! Surely Thierry Henry started somewhere? - Scottyccfc
Indeed he did. And until he met the requirements of the policies I directed you to above, he would not have been eligible for an article. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough, so the club will stay?
Cheers lads!
Scottyccfc
The article on the club is not being considered in this discussion ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Scottyccfc, please see WP:BEANS Have a great one. Xymmax (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, amateur football players with no particularly notable characteristics. Lankiveil (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. They are non-notable football players. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom (and nominate the club for deletion). Sebisthlm (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (allthough I'm not going to be the one that puts the beans up my nose...) Sebisthlm (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None of these are notable sportsmen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:56, 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.

Unbelieveable the lot of ye, in that case why dont ye delete every half arsed Swedish, Danish, Polish or Slovak team! Ill come back in a few hours and I bet it wont be done! Supposidly the team page was not being discussed now its been deleted, lies as per usual!

Scottyccfc oh by the way..THANKS!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - seems like a small discussion, but we have the nominator and two comments agreeing, _and_ the only substantial author of the article has stated no objection. (choice to redirect rather than delete at my discretion as it doesn't seem unlikely that people might search on this specific term) —Random832 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport stage[edit]

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

I see no reason for a separate page on this, already covered adequately in Rallying. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nor is it a directory of rally-car racing terms. Adequately covered elsewhere, so no point in keeping this. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object. Would a redirect to Rallying be appropriate? Subsolar (talk) 22:24, 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. Secret account 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Saratoga (SCVN-2812)[edit]

USS Saratoga (SCVN-2812) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable spacecraft from Space: Above and Beyond. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

SA-43 Hammerhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep The article ought to make this clearer, but I believe the Saratoga is the primary setting of the series. Much like we don't toss out Deep Space Nine (space station) or USS Voyager (Star Trek). The series was fairly long running and fairly well recognized. I can't really support a delete. i kan reed (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Seinfeld's apartment was the primary setting for his show, but it doesn't merit an article. I rather liked the series, but I don't remember the ship itself playing any particularly memorable role in it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I misremembered? Alright feel free to disregard my vote. i kan reed (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I bought the DVDs for the series and watched them recently. The heroes of the series are all Hammerhead pilots operating out of the Saratoga, all the time. The secondary characters are all in the Saratoga. Both the Saratoga and its hammerhead fighters are as notable as TIE fighters and X wing fighters are notable to Star Wars and the Enterprise and the Voyager and the Intrepid are to Star Trek.--AlainV (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- WP:OTHERSTUFF isnot a valid argument. This article does not attempt to establish notability in the real world. Info like this belongs on fan sites, not an encyclopedia. Epthorn (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate when reliable, third party sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:11, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert (How I Met Your Mother episode)[edit]

Spoiler Alert (How I Met Your Mother episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article, per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 07:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Was Totally Destroying It[edit]

I Was Totally Destroying It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No verifiable notability information, WP:MUSIC. -- Dougie WII (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete short and there is hartdly no infomation. I've never heard of them before.Fattyjwoods 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment on article's talk page. Possible that the claims to notability are grossly overexaggerated or simply made up. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete unless secondary sources attesting to notability can be found. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete; looks like they've got a good start, but it'll take a couple of albums on notable labels and more media coverage and touring to meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nobody cares until they have become notable under WP:Music by (at least) putting out two major lable albums and getting some notable secondary sources. A1octopus 14:14, 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. --Oxymoron83 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Neu_Tickles[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, has been tagged for a couple months for verifiability, as well as a handful of others, with no action taken. CharCoal (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nobody ever responded to my comment on the talk page. Non-notable band, no references and says odd things like "An unattributed American media review".

I was going to wait until someone responded to my comment or edited the page, but three months? I should've nominated it. Repku 22:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sepultura's 11th Studio Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sepultura's 11th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncertain future album, WP:CRYSTAL Dougie WII (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Few sources, mostly OR, WP:CRYSTAL. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I recall this being nominated a while back (sorry, I can't find the AFD), and the result was delete then. IE - recreation of previously deleted material. Lugnuts (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL and recreation of previously deleted material. Lankiveil (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep, all this information can be found online or in interviews w/ magazines such as Revolver, people! It's not a crystal ball! It's even listed on the band's Myspace that a new album is coming out. This thing needs a page. How can we improve it if there isn't a page to improve? The article should stay.

Dark Executioner (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

  • Comment There are really no facts even asserted that have to do with this album, all the info in the article is about the band which is already covered in Sepultura. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate under the proper title (when we know it), with the proper titles (when we know them) and with sources (when we have any). tomasz. 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And this is indeed speediable per Lugnuts' comment above. tomasz. 18:05, 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 speedily deleted for the fourth time today by IceKarma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Perkins (Singer)[edit]

Blair Perkins (Singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. No published work. Article appears to have been created by subject, too. Chromaticity (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Vanispamcruftisement. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Lots of sound and fury but no truly notable accomplishments. Just because he knows somebody who knows somebody who's famous doesn't make this kid notable. Even his first single isn't scheduled to be self-released until next year, which violates crystal-balling. Qworty (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The singer is not notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, so tagged. No assertion of notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:53, 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. Secret account 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Stone (Underoath song)[edit]

Heart of Stone (Underoath song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song stub. Song was never released as a single, article contains a whole whack of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky stroup[edit]

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

Seems to be a total WP:HOAX. A google search for any of the names in this article either return wikipedia mirrors or nothing at all. ARendedWinter 05:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux build options[edit]

Linux build options (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A lengthy list of parameters for building an operating system kernel... Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -/- Warren 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a manual or guide, or a glossary of terms (and this article clearly is, so delete). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Improve - the fact that Linux has build options makes it different from the other big OS (where you can't build the kernel yourself). Listing them individually is stupid, as nom., but instead of deletion the page should be replaced with some meta-information and a link to Linux and maybe external lists and explanations of the individual options. --.Tom. (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the fact that these options exist can be covered in Linux. It's a pretty minor aspect of the operating system, and this page is probably better suited to somewhere like Wikibooks. Lankiveil (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the text here is copied straight from the kernel's internal descriptions of the options, as presented in make config or similar. As the Linux kernel is GPLed, this is in fact not (necessarily?) a copyright violation; however, it's not particularly useful either - anyone who's building a kernel already has this information available through the kernel configuration interface. Furthermore, most of the option descriptions are written for a highly technical audience, and aren't useful to the general public. For example, one explains that the "SYN_COOKIE" option "provides syncookie support"; another tells us that "INFINIBAND... provides support for Infiniband devices". Zetawoof(ζ) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rm -rf / as we are not a software manual repository. Anyone actually building the kernel (around 1% of Linux users) will want the actual documentation that comes with their distribution, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sudo rm -rf /usr/share/wikipedia/Linux build options Copyvio. ViperSnake151 13:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think copyvio makes much sense when a GFDL text product is incorporated into a GFDL encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually he has a point. GFDL requires attribution. This throws out that info... Possible copyvio, I'd need a lawyer to say for sure though. i kan reed (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This might find a home at Wikibooks, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an instruction manual; the information is readily and freely available elsewhere. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Wikipedia is not a collection of arbitrary information. I somehow doubt we can have an article discussing the social impacts of compile options in linux. i kan reed (talk) 19:05, 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 tedious garbage. DS (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gangle[edit]

The first line fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and rest seems to be an expansion of urbandictionary.com definitions[24], which would fail WP:OR ARendedWinter 05:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. May be A7-able.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a7 criteria (and I've removed the tag). Anyways, its a neo or dictionary def. Whatever it is, it isnt notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete This article does not fail "wikipedia is not a dictionary" requirement, as it goes on to explain the definition as any good encyclopedia article would. Also, gangles are very notable because everyone knows at least one, and this article should help improve your relationship with them. Nothing i used in writing this article was borrowed from urban dictionary.com. If you would like to see a verifiable source for the material, i recommend seeing [[25]]. Stinkybear57 (talk) 01:10, 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 no consensus. --- RockMFR 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, fan cruft and lacking notability Knowitall (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup -- a whole bunch of stuff just got AfDed and merged into this article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Very, very weak. The main article is way to long as it is, and this stuff is mildly important to the (notable) game, so... - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as the first comment. --.Tom. (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although I'm a Zelda fan). Fact is, this article does not establish its topic's notability, and I cannot see how it will be anything else than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. These enemies are just "there" in the game. You kill them and that's it. They don't further the game's plot. It doesn't matter if you kill a Octorok or a Peahat, the game would still be the same. So you don't need to know about all these enemies to understand what Zelda is about. It would be much better to have one or two sourced paragraphs about these enemies in the gameplay section in the main article than this list. – sgeureka t•c 10:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up... an appropriate sub-article for the Zelda series to summarize this information. Pinball22 (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up - per Pinball22; a valid resource for the larger article on the game series. ◄Zahakiel► 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sub-articles covering fictional topics are sometimes appropriate, but "[e]ven these articles need real-world information to prove their notability" (WP:FICTION). Without out-of-universe information from independent sources (covering things like how these enemies were invented, or what game reviewers thought of them), the article fails notability guidelines. EALacey (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Zelda players may wish to have an exhaustive list of all the game enemies, but this information belongs on a fansite or Zelda-themed wiki. For a general audience this entire article could be better summarized as "In the Legend of Zelda games, players fight a variety of enemies". There is nothing to indicate that any of these enemies are noteworthy due to innovative design or influence on other games. If any of these enemies are truly notable then a concise paragraph with sources in the main article should be sufficient coverage. CKarnstein (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Sgeureka. The enemies aren't really notable and the article is like a game guide. The bosses article is slightly different as some of them have an impact on the storyline in some way, but enemies don't. .:Alex:. 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discriminate and notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid information, stuff people will look for, possible to find publications discussion such enemies(though sourcing the article as it is currently written would be hard). This smells like a nomination to prove a point, but I don't know that. i kan reed (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Materials from plot must be in articles that have real-world relevance. An article purely on elements from the plot of a game that do not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is not notable. See WP:PLOT, WP:N. Subdolous (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure plot repetition, keepers must demonstrate real world coverage and notability per WP:FICTION to justify keeping. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN fancruft. --Slartibartfast1992 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, weak keep. Some of these characters, like the Stalfos, are fairly iconic. Admittedly, I haven't found much real-world information, but I suspect that any such info would be printed in video game magazines, which aren't conveniently archived at Lexis, Factiva, or Newsbank. An alternative would be to merge some of the long-running enemies into a general list of Zelda characters. Zagalejo^^^ 02:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discriminate and notable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Artichoker (Talk | Contributions) 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Races in The Legend of Zelda series or List of recurring characters in The Legend of Zelda series, preferrably races, like make an enemies section. Though honestly I do vote keep, Zelda is a notable game series as are its enemies, but if you must delete it, I say merge it. Matty-chan 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Matty-chan. Zerokitsune 14:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On second though, merging to Races is probably best, seeing as how Deku Scrubs are in there, and in some Zelda games like Ocarina of Time, Deku Scrubs ARE an enemy. Matty-chan 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - however, "Races" is aimed at the sentient races that possess sentience, etc. While some of these have been antagonists, it is not meant to be a general "species".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is factual and many characters (Like Moblins and Octorocks) are notable to the Zelda series. ZordZapper 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Purely in-universe content that fails to assert notability per WP:FICT. Eusebeus 13:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - there has been a draft for a rewrite in my userbox for a while, but interest died pretty quickly. This page does need the sourcing demanded by others, but it is not likely to get it unless people step up. Personally, I don't have the resources, though I might suggest shifting the focus from simply recurring enemies to enemies that are particularly important in the games, such as the Phantom or Shadow enemies, and possibly covering some of the "perfect attendance" enemies like Octoroks or Stalfos. I would also suggest that those voting keep spend some time to look for the sources needed, and compile them on the talk page, so we can do a write-up. Thank you.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is an appropriate way to organise material, complementary to the main article. If the characters as a whole are notable, the article is--the individual onjes dont have to be--and this is a lot better than indefensible small articles on each of them. DGG (talk) 01:11, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Ethical Thinking[edit]

Combined Ethical Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Zero hits on google scholar and google books. Edited twice in its history. The editor who began the page wrote on my talk page that he was taught it by his lecturer, but wonders whether the lecturer made it up. The concept is virtually a form of moral pluralism, without any justification given for holding the position. P.S. 'moral pluralism' is not the same as 'value pluralism', so don't pay too much attention to the contents of that page when comparing with 'Combined Ethical Thinking' - I kind of hope you will just trust me on that one. Anarchia (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. —Anarchia (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nominator demonstrates lack of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, fails WP:N. (wikipedia's first AfD for "something my professor made up in class one day?") Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:V and WP:NN. --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Pete.Hurd. Only notable ghit appears to be the creators own site.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the above (N and V). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could not find any ghits either, but I caution the wisdom of it: We don't accept Google as a proof of notability, but we accept 0 ghits as a disprove? --.Tom. (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not exactly a disprove, but when taken with the complete lack of sourcing in the article...--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badonkadonk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO in every respect. Unattributable, unsalvageably unencyclopedic. One line entry followed by trivia, etc. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletealete. It is a fairly common term, popularized by Honky Tonk Badonkadonk among other things -- and the first source is decent at least. Other than that I'm pretty sure that it won't be easily expanded beyond a dicdef and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This type of content is more valuable at the Urban Dictionary, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. So what's the story with all these: Category:Slang expressions and Category:Sexual slang? --Brewcrewer (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I knew that I would get this answer and I wish to respond to that. That term is used as if it's Wikipedia policy. It isn't. The top of the page explicetly states: This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. This page may contain advice or opinions, but editors are not obliged to follow any suggestions it may contain. Moreover, even if the "rule" were to be followed, the "rule" explicetly states: Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this. --Brewcrewer (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think in some of those cases, the slang words are in such common use that they are just more notable. Hip hop slang has a tenancy to create a word one week and forget it ever existed the next; but when I hear Badonkadonk as much and as long as I have Bling-bling, then I think there might be grounds for inclusion. But until then, delete this article, and in the mean time, there's no need to give the deletionists any ideas about where to find deletion candidates. ;) --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The existence of a category for sexual slang is not an invitation to create articles for every sexual slang term in existence, just as the existence of a category for rock bands is to create one for every rock band everyone has ever started in a garage. The deletion of one article about a sexual slang term is neither an argument for deleting all sexual slang from Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article does reference its wide acceptance and usage. --Brewcrewer (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable neo. And other stuff does exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN slang. Even if there are articles that use the term like the song, it need only be explained in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic neologism Doc Strange (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article only states situations where people were forced to explain its meaning, thereby landing a fatal blow to this neologism's claim to notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang guide, it seems unlikely that the article can be expanded beyond a definition. [[Guest9999 (talk) 19:49, 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 --JForget 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PM Optimization[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability. - Jehochman Talk 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I find nothing that would indicate notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no grounds for passing WP:N & much of the article reads like advertising copy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as thinly disguised advertising for http://www.pmoptimisation.com.au Anytime you see someone marking the title of the main subject of an article as trademarked the COI alarm bells should go off. Jehochman, I know you were trying to assume good faith by undeleting it in response to the creators complaint but you should have just kept it deleted as your first hunch was the right one. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - the term yields just under 1000 ghits, many of whom don't seem to be linked to the mentioned company. "PMO2000" appears to be a trademarked implementation of the method, and the advertisement for it should be cut down considerably. However, from what little I could gather, PMO is more than that and while a fringe topic not entirely unknown. --.Tom. (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup -- yeah, what .Tom. said. That's the impression I got before, but didn't have the refs to back it up. On my Google searches, I found references to it in Navy and Air Force manuals.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like marketing buzzword gunk to me. Lankiveil (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, vehemently. Purportedly about a methodology which focuses on improving maintenance effectiveness and efficiency by review or rationalization of an existing maintenance program (formal or informal) and in most cases adding maintenance tasks to account for failure modes not addressed by the existing program. A blizzard of words that boils down to finding new ways to remind yourself to clean the litter box. People who have something important to say do not write like this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like someone trying to make their particular marketing buzzword legit via wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 15:36, 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. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pocono Playhouse[edit]

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

In the previous AfD, some months ago, I was the only one (other than the nominator) who thought this should be deleted, even though the article was unreferenced and failed, I think, to even assert notability. (The keep opinions were either along the lines of "I've heard of it" or were objections to the form of the nomination, and the AfD was closed by a non-admin who remarked on the total absence of sources.) In the intervening months, the article has remained unchanged, and I've looked for sources that could be used to write an actual article about this place without being able to find any—just passing mentions without any information about the venue itself or its history. Even the theater's official Web site lacks any sort of usable information. Hence this new nomination. Deor (talk) 03:31, 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 --JForget 23:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only[edit]

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

From DRV relisting. Prodego talk 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said at the DRV, I think an article with this title needs to exist, but not this one. Delete and start over. Chick Bowen 03:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: Per the last deletion reason. No reliable sources, thus unverifiable. Lets remember the Verifiability policy here "..inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..". - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Republican In Name Only. I wonder if these links qualify as good sources - [- [26], [27]. The French Wikipedia also has an article on it - [28]. K a r n a (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging with RINO makes no sense, these are two differenmt issues, and while DINO is clearly derivative of RINO if it is worth including in wikipedia it should be given it's own section seperate from RINO. I am not sure how common this term is, but RINO is a very common term and an important part of debate on the political right in the US. Moheroy (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - my suggestion was on the basis that "In Name Only" is the defining factor here. Applied to a Libertarian or Socialist, it would mean the same thing. When faced with possible deletion, I felt if DINO can be merged with RINO, it would be worth doing. K a r n a (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the last AfD and the DR, there ARE sources, lots of them in fact. Croctotheface (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jreferee deserves credit for finding these sources, which I'll repost with full credit for the research going to him:
  • Newsday (October 23, 1994) Campaign '04: Some Democrats in Name Only Many of Assembly's GOP incumbents face weak, poorly funded challenges in Suffolk. Section: News Page A55.
  • South China Morning Post (July 24, 2004) A democrat in name only. Page 2.
  • Miller, Dawn. (October 30, 2004) The Charleston Gazette Dinos and Rinos and liars, oh my! Section: Editorial; Page 4A.
  • Jacklin, Michele. (March 13, 2005) The Hartford Courant Democrat in name only? Leftist bloggers dog Lieberman. Section: Commentary; Page C3.
  • Rubin, Richard. (June 17, 2005) The Charlotte Observer Out of the mayor's race, Cannon fires off shots. He criticizes Madans, McCrory, "Democrats in name only." Section: Local; Page 5B.
  • Boston Herald (January 11, 2006) Editorial; Where DINOs now roam Section: Editorial; Page 28.
  • Zremski, Jerry. (July 12, 2006) The Buffalo News At times, Higgins votes with the GOP. Record on key issues prompts liberals to attack congressman as "Democrat in name only". Section: News; Page A1.
  • Ashby, Charles. (August 20, 2006) The Pueblo Chieftain GOP challenger says give voters a choice: Susan Pelto says she's out for "DINO" votes.
  • Groves, Isaac. (November 5, 2006) Times-News Many local voters are Democrats in name only.
  • Ferguson, Andrew. (November 26, 2006) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette A rare bird joins the Washington Aviary. But will Jim Webb, a Democart in Name Only, turn out to be a dynamo or dodo? Section: Editorial; Page H3.
  • Koff, Stephen. (August 16, 2007) Cleveland Plain Dealer "You're a Democrat in name only" Ex-candidate Hackett reveals Kucinich slam. Section: Metro; Page B2.
  • Google books
  • Google scholar Croctotheface (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clearly a notable political term in fairly common usage and there are plenty of sources above. If it needs some work then do the work. Nick mallory (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we recognize the RINOs, we have to recognize the DINOs. Qworty (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Croctotheface. RINO and DINO are commonly used epithets in U.S. politics. • Gene93k (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously plenty of secondary sources available. Lankiveil (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, per the sources provided above. Is DINO derived from RINO, or is it the other way around? Let's keep both and let it be. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify and restart 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the consensus seems to generally be to keep the article, I'm actually OK with this option as well, so long as the article is not outright deleted again. Croctotheface 09:53, 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 — no reliable sources presented which support notability. Linking to a Google news search is not providing relevant sources. --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage (Internet)[edit]

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

No effort has been put into sourcing it since it's last nomination, plenty of original research is also present. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Redirect to Sage Telecom: No reason for a separate article as the Internet wing isn't notable, neither is Sage internet service to begin with. Remove the OR, and move the rest over to the parent company. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN, unsourced by RS (or any sources) for verifiability, and a bit of OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's interesting and informative. Does need sources, etc. Also, Rjd0060 apparently didn't read the article as Sage (internet) is not an internet service or wing of Sage Telecom, but an internet forum term. --.Tom. (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. You're right, I didn't see that page. I must have went to a different page by mistake. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism with no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I particularly liked the rationale from the following comment from the last AFD. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Um, can you prove that it's notable, though? If it's notable in Japan...the sources don't have to be in english. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment? No, it's 3:30 A.M. EST and I'm studying for a math test tomorrow. Hopefully someone else will come along with some concrete sources. I do note that Googling sage 2channel yields ~13k results, although I'm quite aware that's not a reason to keep by itself. In other news, there's a WikiFur, "the furry encyclopedia"? Crazy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about 下げる 掲示板 and 下げる 2ch? - Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My browswer can't even render the text on those pages, but I'll trust you if you say so. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:15, 5 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 — Caknuck 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn L Ward[edit]

Vaughn L Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn bio Cacas123 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This gentleman appears to have had an admirable career thus far, but I don't see notability per our standards. The closest the article gets is 'assumed command of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 25th Marines'—but the entire battalion is 750-1000 men, and Charlie is but one of five companies within the battalion, so unless we're missing part of the picture, I don't think this belongs here. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The relevant results of a Google news search do not turn up anything that would sufficiently meet WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alas, in none of his professional incarnations has he done anything significant enough to join that minuscule percentage of humanity that is truly notable. Qworty (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, working soldier. Good on him, but accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - CIA, Army, Senate doesn't sound too common, and the article is much better in quality than many that aren't on AfD. nom definitely should provide more info on subjects exact position and role, especially with the senator, to have the article deleted. --.Tom. (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do you mean by telling the nom that s/he "should provide more info [. . .] to have the article deleted"? Maralia (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to figure that one out myself. Doesn't make much sense. It sounds like he's trying to say that we need even more information about Ward, and that this additional information will make it obvious how really NON-notable Ward is, and therefore the "weak keep" vote can be changed to the delete that we all know the article deserves. Am I close to the intended meaning here? Qworty (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sad, but I can't see any way to recommend keeping this reasonably comprehensive and well-written article. It just doesn't meet WP:N. Tim Ross·talk 01:12, 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 Delete. Inadequate verification for stand-alone article at this time. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobodys Angel[edit]

Nobodys Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is It Just Me?‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a crystalballing album. However I found this minor citation on Fox News. There is also other sources, but all without name of songs. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, no reliable sources have verified the info here yet. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: That FNC source does nothing except a minor mention. Too early for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't true.Universal Music Group released a statement to E! News saying Lindsay would start recording an album as soon as she can since she is contractually obligated to. So, she hasn't started recording yet. --Starsareblind07 (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mark as a future eventPatcat88 (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now,but from where did the poster get the track listing,and the producers and writers...if the poster can show from where then it should stay,but if not it should be deleted...although i got to say,that tracklisting looks veey convincing....as if its the real thing,especially with the i-tunes bonus track touch at the end.......—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk)
  • Keep the album article, as it has sources that says Lindsay is recording a new album.
    And delete the song article. It doesn't have any sources. — Jhn* 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (album ahs been moved to Lindsay Lohan's third studio album)- There isn't enough reliable information to have a separate article. At most to mention in the artists article whether or not she is working on one.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:24, 5 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 — Caknuck 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LG LX350[edit]

LG LX350 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. There are insufficient substantial references to write a sustainable Wikipedia article for this cellular phone. {{prod}} was removed, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yet another non notable cell phone. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:N. There are no independent reliable sources (blog review, anyone?) to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject, and nothing to demonstrate the product's notability. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:01, 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 — Caknuck 17:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (US season 6)[edit]

Dancing with the Stars (US season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per crystalballery. A look at google and google news do not show an announcement of a sixth season, and no sources are provided to verify the statement. I (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pure speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources, reliable sources, to confim that the show will even come to air (I'm sure it will but we need verifiability, not truth). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The show will air it as it has been picked up, but there are no details on it that could not be included in a sentence on the main Dancing with the Stars article. This article can be be recreated when the new season is formally announced. Moheroy (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the show has been picked up and will be airing again. This article will just be recreated in a few weeks if it's deleted. Knowitall 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to give a source that says the show has been picked up for a sixth season? I (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Need more information before putting it here. Everything is speculation at this time!!! Shawn W 02:56, 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 Merge to Lenticular lens. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing technic of a lenticular product[edit]

Manufacturing technic of a lenticular product (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for animators, photographers, or lens users; and secondly, we have a encyclopedic version of this information already in lenticular lens so this article will never be more than a badly-titled duplicate. Its long and confusing title means this is better off being deleted than redirected. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Lenticular lens. This article is *not* a how-to guide, but includes details regarding the lenticular lens that is not included in the parent article. There is no reason for this article to exist independently, but there is no reason for additional useful information present here and absent from Lenticular lens to be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Some of this information is useful and not included in Lenticular lens. However, there is definitely an excess of detail which must be trimmed. Hal peridol (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The missing info into the other article. No need for 2 separate articles here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as above. nom doesn't do the article justice, there is a lot of encyclopedic information in it. --.Tom. (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially merge this into Lenticular lens per above, preserving any text not merged on a subpage of the talk page. I understand why the nom. thought this had too much "how to" type information in it, and portions of it are unwikified and too technical for general readers. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Impact (film - Timothy Mitchell)[edit]

Moving Impact (film - Timothy Mitchell) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on an amateur movie written by its writer/director. I just don't see a possibility of this being notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:MOVIE. Probably should have been speedied. Temperalxy 02:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources, not verified, non notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to even assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. This meets the very definition of non-notability in so many different ways! Qworty (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No sources, no claim of notability, 0 ghits for "Timothy Mitchell" + "Moving Impact".--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pot Headed Hooligans[edit]

The Pot Headed Hooligans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon declined prod for a seemingly non-notable band, saying "their library alone meets WP:BAND requirements". The references here are self- or apparently made-up. Suspect hoax or spam. tomasz. 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and that BBC ref is just to a bbc local "what's on in my area page". Pretty much any local band can be featured on that. RMHED (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:MUSIC, with made-up sources to boot. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable band. At the very least, remove everything after "What follows is information from unauthorized accounts which may or may not be entirely reliable...", which doesn't leave much in the way of real, verifiable material. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:04, 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 — Caknuck 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lombardo[edit]

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

Delete no obvious notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. For some reason an editor decided to courtesy blank the article instead of reverting the vandalism, but since he's nn, no reason to revert. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:11, 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. BencherliteTalk 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stahl[edit]

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

Delete nn bit-part player. His imdb entry shows lots of non-recurring roles 1 episode here or there, short of WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:03, 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. The consensus was delete. An MBE by itself is not enough to establish notability. Moreover, the article is wholly unsourced. I have carried out a thorough search but I can't stand up the MBE so the article fails WP:V which is policy. Incidentally, Haikin is described as a CBE (which undoubtedly is notable) here. Sourcing the award of the honour is, in my view, essential but the article should come back to DRV for reconsideration if the sourcing issues can be resolved. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Haikin[edit]

Non-notable individual. AvruchTalk 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An MBE doesn't really imply notability. Over 1000 are awarded every year, usually for pretty prosaic activities. My father had one but he would be nowhere near being notable by Wikipedia standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he is. there are many notable people who don't have a WP article. I am glad of your respect for COI, but point me to some sources, and I'll give it a try. If he isn't, saying not all of them are, doesnt imply anything about this one in particular. DGG (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phil has pointed out to me that any possible notability is likely to be more for the restaurant, which seems not unreasonable as Westminster Kingsway College seems to be known for its hospitality program & has several distinguished chefs as graduates.. Since its a very large multit-site further education college (I suppose equivalent to as US Community College ?) with apparently 19,000 students, I suggest that she is in fact notable & the article needs work accordingly. DGG (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate when sources are found. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability other than the MBE, not much in sourcing. Secret account 23:43, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Closing Theory[edit]

Open Closing Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not even really sure what category this BS should be under, but it definitely seems to be entirely WP:OR and fails WP:N. AvruchTalk 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Psudo-marxist, anti-capitialist, anti-establishment, with a dash of existential angst. Could be the foreword to a groundbreaking work of philosophy, or just incomprehensible rambling. Unfortunately, in either case it is still OR, and it has no place on Wikipedia. No ghits --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-no refrences and lack of notable research.--Quek157 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely (as in 100%) OR..Not for WP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR essay. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with strong cleanup - article is POV and almost unreadable, lacks references, etc. - but I fail to see why it should not be included, even if the badly necessary cleanup makes the introduction an "one theory considered by most to be lunatic is...". --.Tom. (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, if we could find a reliable source which states that "Open Closing Theory is a lunatic theory" I'd be all for that, but... what we have here is the problem that, for an encyclopedic topic, to have people say bad things about you might be hurtful, but to have nobody say anything about you is downright deleterious. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basing around many past, suggested ideals, the theory is a branch of existentialist ideals, of non-existence, and realistic views, of the futility of human existence. Being a strong believer in the futility of human existence, I want to find some sense in all this. But Google Scholar has never heard of it. Google main brings forth only a couple of hits that seem to have to do with financial forecasting models, which are probably also undesirable subjects for articles, but appear to have nothing to do with whatever this is about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to OR. It's a rantBillscottbob (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong on OR, weak on notability. Tim Ross·talk 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with strong cleanup - I don't understand as was stated by why this should be deleted, I will undertake the cleanup if necessary. Although the language is somewhat incoherent, and contradictory, the theory seems to be based upon some sort of marxist theory, maybe even a dash of objectavism in there, thus the article should be kept. (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this theory to be acceptable Wikipedia material it has to be already published material (no original research). If there is published work about this theory then it would be okay for keep and cleanup. Until citatons to published work can be provided, this article can only be interpreted as OR. Billscottbob (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's OR. Merenta 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sourcing. No evidence this is anything more than the creator's idea. Someguy1221 21:35, 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 delete, while the article was improved, Smerdis of Tlön is right, and those changes weren't formed, I'll be happy to undelete and place it on a user subpage for the editor to improve on the article. Secret account 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Envox Worldwide[edit]

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

Not a notable corporation. Cites seem to not really meet WP:RS. AvruchTalk 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per the nom. The intro reads a bit advertisment-y and the most of the sources are not reliable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The less notable a business is, the likelier it becomes that they will use the words "global", "worldwide", or "international" in their business name. We have a global provider of IP-based voice solutions here. If someone wants to dissolve my voice, again, please use ethanol. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and for the opportunity to fine tune the listing. I’ve reviewed the post and have made significant changes to the language in keeping with the style of other “company” posts that I found on Wikipedia. Additionally, I’ve added third party references that substantiate the statements made within the text. I am hopeful that the post now gains your acceptance.TurkuckenTalk
  • The newer version is somewhat improved. I still believe you need to go through and render every mention of "solutions" in the article into more concrete terms. This doesn't appear to be a chemical firm. I do ride a high horse on this use of the word "solution," which strikes me as an atrociously ugly neologism; more importantly, labelling the business's products and services as "solutions" inherently violates our WP:NPOV policy. I did rewrite the opening paragraph to get rid of one of them; I don't know enough about the business to rewrite labels like converged communication solutions into concrete, plain English. The paragraph that begins Envox Worldwide is active in the Voice Solutions market probably needs to go in its entirety; it doesn't seem to be about this business specifically in any case. With these changes, I would recommend that the article be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be adequately referenced now. Needs categories, though. --Eastmain 21:49, 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: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Page was essentially a parody of the person's claims; well, the joke is over - Wikipedia articles are meant to be factual. (No opinion about his actual notability.) - Mike Rosoft 23:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensei Al Perry[edit]

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

All of 4 ghits, suspected hoax. Prod removed by anon. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a joke page originating from a Bullshido.net forum thread http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63014. Should be deleted.Meok (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a joke and completely accurate. Al Perry has been given numerous chances to refute the provided info. and he has declined to do so at every turn. Leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.3.163 (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Joke or not, it isn't notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is noteable - of you are a BJJ practitioner this is something that is haunting our little world. To outright dismiss it is something I would expect from a communist, not wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.144.109 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not a communist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I stated on the talk page for the article, the article was made for the purpose of promoting "Sensei Al Perry" and his school. Further, it seems that there are those who wish to turn the article into a investigation report about Sensei Al Perry's recent actions. This is not what Wikipedia was designed for. MastaFighta (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Keep it this hack is a disgrace to true practioners of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu[reply]

  • Delete It actually is a joke and should be deleted -- Jimmy C. 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Jim (talk • contribs)
  • Delete idiot anons speak for itself. JuJube (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax (the image in the external link is proof enough). Cosmo0 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax; tag to that effect added to article. Xymmax 22:42, 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 delete, recreate when it's being built with Reliable sources showing it's notabilty. Secret account 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckinghamshire Incinerator[edit]

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

Page for a proposed facility in Buckinghamshire, the location of which hasn't even been decided yet. Giving it an article leads the casual reader to believe that it's an actual facility, which it is not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The page has been prod'd in the past, and the prod was contested and not taken further. Roleplayer (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The article makes no attempt to predict the future. It explains a proposed facility which is currently the preferred option of the council and is presently under wider consultation. Alex Marshall (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there are two other articles for proposed facilities at Belvedere Incinerator and Newhaven Incinerator, which follow a similar format. I am not listing them for deletion at this time though will not rule out doing so in the future, based on the outcome of this discussion. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry. I have seen building proposals struck down in my local municipality, and while it may be relevant if there is public outcry and then it is built, right now it doesn't seem notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The 6 G-hits don't include anything that would make this notable enough for an article here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework As the original writer of the article I accept it is a little brief on content and needs expanding. It has since been added to by an antiincineration group, which gives it a bias. I disagree with the comment that the article is not notable. If you are a resident of Buckinghamshire, interested in or concerned about the future of waste treatment it is clearly notable. Also in the UK we are in a phase of growing development of infrastructure designed to meet the EU Landfill Directive. There are presently major changes in the way we manage our waste or a member of the wider waste management community this is definately notable. A Google search is quite a lazy way of determining notability for new projects, as in their initial stages proposed infrastructure developments are seldom listed on websites. Also there is proof of notability by the additions by the anti-incineration group and their interest in this article, even if they are using it to increase exposure of their organisation.--Alex Marshall (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition I note there are also comments about the notability of the Belvedere Incinerator. This project has been so contraversial the Mayor of London has been involved in the surrounding debate. Please check the references for this as they clearly show notability. --Alex Marshall (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: the mention of the other two was not to say they have to be deleted, it was to point out that if it helps to decide in discussion whether this article should be kept, it might be worth while looking at the others to get context. If I had intended for either of the other two to get deleted now, I would have nominated them now. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hi Roleplayer, I think I created all of the articles listed. The Belvedere project is the one of most notability. --Alex Marshall (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - proposals under active consideration would be notable. If the proposal is rejected by the relevent council, then it looses notability and would only be entitled to a redlink on List of incinerators in the UK (or, at most, a paragraph on List of rejected incinerator proposals in the UK ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if completed, the facility still needs to establish notability to meet WP:N for example by multiple, independent secondary sources, and that has yet to be achieved. This article might have attained notability had the Opposition section been sourced with some seriously reliable sources but it is unsourced. All in all the case for keeping this page simply hasn't been made. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 8 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 Speedy delete by User:IceKarma as reposted material, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wheat[edit]

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

The only notability that I could find was promotional and her being someone's girlfriend as in reference 2. She's clearly an art student as ref 2 states. The wikipedia brief article is almost verbatim from http://iskenderiye.com/story/natasha-wheat/ Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 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 by User:Mikkalai (that was fast), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you are even faster: you squeezed in while I was struggling with edit conflicts. Closing admin rationale: nonverifiable, detrimental to wikipedia, references are fake, user name is abusive and blocked indefitinety. `'Míkka>t 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy steamer[edit]

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

Teddy steamer is an apparent neologism -- no Google hits, not found in Urban Dictionary. The "Health Risks" section and references should be merged to Coprophagia — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalJor (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 keep. John254 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Kryukov[edit]

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

Same as other ambassador/Zimbabwe related afd. AvruchTalk 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Russia was the main backer of ZAPU in the Rhodesian Bush War. Relations between the two countries are very notable for Zimbabwe. While there is not that much info, he is notable enough to merit inclusion. Jose João (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an ambassador is not a back-tier clerk, the position warrants notability. `'Míkka>t 04:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am sure this article can be expanded. Like the above comment suggests, this isn't a garbage man we're talking about. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As comments on the talk page of another article created by this editor have noted... There are many thousands of ambassadors in the world at any moment. Should all ambassadors of any period be considered notable, regardless of what they have done/achieved? AvruchTalk 05:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No.. I hate to put it this way, but these aren't little, unknown countries. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zimbabwe is not exactly a global powerhouse, or a regional powerhouse (anymore), or even a domestic Zimbabwe powerhouse. I hope the ambassador to Zimbabwe (and from, in the other related AfD) don't get paid in local currency. AvruchTalk 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: being a powerhouse is not the only way for a country to be notable. --Paularblaster 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable enough person. Russia and Zimbabwe aren't non-notable countries, and this guy can't be called non-notable himself (per Jose). --Palatinus Regni!!! 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This substub needs expansion, not deletion. The subject represents Russia in a place currently in crisis. --Paularblaster 01:03, 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 Redirect to John Courtney (diplomat) as there seems to be consensus to have an article on the person while the redirect might be useful and certainly does no harm. Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles John Hodgson[edit]

Charles John Hodgson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has essentially no information other than this persons job. Are all ambassadors in all countries considered notably? Note that it seems like the creator of this article is making articles for all ambassadors from Zimbabwe. AvruchTalk 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question of notability for ambassadors has been raised at WP:BIO (talk page). My argument is that ambassadors who have done nothing else (i.e. been involved in some major diplomatic achievement or imbroglio) are not automatically notable, particularly (As in this case) if they were just barely appointed. AvruchTalk 16:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be gracious to give reasonable time for the creating editor (and/or other editors) to expand and justify the article. It was only created 3 hours ago!
My suggestion would be to wait one month and then delete it if it has not expanded to a more encyclopaedic size.Alice.S 00:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Question: You are the editor that created this article. Do you intend to expand it soon? Alice.S 01:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
He's been made an ambassador just this month. It is incumbent upon the creator of an article to demonstrate notability, at the very least beginning with an assertion of notability. "Charles John Hodgson" gets 6 hits on google. That... is not very many. Even I get more. AvruchTalk 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of hits may just be because User:Perspicacite alias Jose João (presumably relying on Zimbabwean sources) may have got the Gentleman's name slightly wrong. If it's the career diplomat that I once had the pleasure of meeting in Singapore at a diplomatic reception, then you might get more results with searching for Mr Charles John Hodgson COURTNEY. If I remember right, he used to do the Hong Kong and Macau stuff for the Ozzies when he was in this neck of the woods...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talk • contribs)
"Charles John Hodgson" gets SIX hits on Google, while "Charles John Hodgson Courtney" gets ONE HIT. And that's in English, not Zimbabwean. I would think that an ambassador would get more presence than that. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google's great but not infallible. Leaving aside the professional diplomat's natural reticence and desire to keep a low profile, he does pop up in the Ozzie Hansard on occasion. Here's a recent reference: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j10362.pdf (He also gave evidence to the same committee 2 years ago as I recall) Alice.S 02:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: And expand. I am sure there is much to include into this article, being about a person holding a very notable position. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, ambassadors are not covered by WP:BIO but as the local representative of an entire other country they probably should be. As a new ambassador, naturally his period of notability has just begun. --Dhartung | Talk 08:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ambassadors hold an international office and thus qualify under WP:BIO. Furthermore, it is a matter of correcting the systematic bias inherent in Wikipedia against non-western figures.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the Australian Ambassador to Zimbabwe is notable enough (two notable countries, one in a severe crisis); but since his name is John Courtney this article should probably be binned. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC) But I see that you already know this (how did I miss that before commenting?)[reply]
  • Delete, ambassadors are not automatically notable, and the one reference given says very little about this person. If no sources are given indicating notability, this bio should be deleted. The "international office" line in WP:BIO only relates to politicians, i.e. (in most countries) elected persons, where the election for the position will have generated interest (and thus coverage in reliable independent sources). Ambassadors often get by without any mention at all apart from "X is the new ambassador" and a few years laters "X is replaced by Y, the new ambassador". This is clearly insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the work of a moment for someone to include this source (as I have suggested on the article's talk page; I can't do it because Perspicacite has ownership issues): http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/zw.html
I agree with your assertion with regard to politicians; in most Commonwealth countries, ambassadors are not (officially) political appointments. However, given the usual legal status of an ambassador as plenipotentiary for the state he represents, there should be a very strong presumption of notability (which can always be refuted in the rare cases that an ambassador's position only lasts a few days {perhaps notable in itself? - grin} or it is impossible to garner insufficient biographical detail {not the case here}.
I would propose re-naming the article to John Courtney and placing a note on the current re-direct page which currently refers to an (less notable?) ornithologist. Alice.S 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that link is just a bio of an employee posted by his employer. This is not an indicator of notability or an independent source at all (it is of course a reliable source, but that's not sufficient). Most companies have similar bios of their key people on their website, but that does not make these people more or less notable. Fram (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even when "his employer" is the Australian Government? In this context, the reliable source is independent of the article topic since the topic is the employee and not the employer and that employer is sufficiently large for it to be clear that the employee is not able to unduly pressurize the employer into including biased or inaccurate information as a source. As to notability, very few of the "source's" employees have biographical information listed like this, so it does constitute confirmation of notability - at least in the eyes of the Australian Government. Alice.S 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, even then. There are listed for this department alone at least 100 people[29]. And it is not because the source is big, important, or reliable that it is independent. I am not claiming that the info is biased or incorrect, I am claiming that an employer posting info on an employee can never be seen as an independent source establishing notability. Fram (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go to the core of your argument, but there are only 81 diplomats listed with plenipotentiary powers to act as head of state abroad. An order of magnitude less than all the parliamentarians in Australia who are indubitably and automatically "notable" because they were elected. Alice.S 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Ambassadors are easily as notable as MPs; the fact that they have lower public profiles (and hence give fewer google hits) is irrelevant: they represent not just constituencies but whole countries. --Paularblaster 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict with previous)[reply]
  • To quote John Courtney himself: "I can't comment further. Diplomacy has to be conducted between governments and not through news media." This does make referncing harder; it doesn't make ambassadors any less notable. --Paularblaster 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to John Courtney, which will involve juggling with the redirect to John Edgar Courtney (who seems no less notable than the ambassador). Then flesh it out with information from the various sources you get by Googling for "'john courtney' Zimbabwe" etc, e.g. "John Courtney is currently the Australian ambassador to Zimbabwe. He was appointed to the post in November 2007, (source) replacing Jonathan Sheppard, who had been ambassador since July 2004." That doubles the size of the article, and it only took me a minute or so; I imagine that Courtney will be in the news eventually, perhaps when Robert Mugabe kicks him out. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but move to John Courtney, per totality of argumentation above. Alice.S 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, while we were discussing pinhead dancing, you seem to have been very busy and created a brand new viable article at another page, Paularblaster. Because of this, and the fact that the originator of the article under discussion has chosen not to expand it, in the 4 days since he created it or answer my question above as to his intentions, I have deleted my vote immediately above and made a replacement vote below. Please note that I am unable to make the necessary and obvious redirect myself since that will probably provoke the article's originator into yet another attempt to have me banned.
I also congratulate you on creating the necessary disambiguation page at John_Courtney
Given that the AFD is still open, redirecting the article now would be ill-timed and probably exacerbative, at best. The closing admin, if he or she determines that the totality of the discussion indicates that a redirect is best, will redirect it him/herself. -- ArglebargleIV 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop complaining. Yes, I would oppose you unilaterally redirecting the article. This is an AFD. You dont just decide to ignore all votes and close the AFD to get what you want... or maybe you do, but that wont fly here. Try not to troll quite so much. Jose João 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jose, I don't see where she is unilaterally redirecting the article, nor where she is closing the AFD. She's changed her !vote here for the article to be redirected. The history of the Charles John Hodgson article shows she hasn't done a move, unilaterally or not. The history of this AFD shows she hasn't tried to close it, either. -- ArglebargleIV 21:47, 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 Keep, non-admin closure. AvruchTalk 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvar Palmgren[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, seemingly. I'd welcome the opinion of anyone from a botany project on whether the short list of academic work on this page merits notability in that field. AvruchTalk 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep From this Google search it looks like he had something to say, but I don't speak Finnish, so I couldn't tell you what. Hopefully there are some Finns that can chime in here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least provisionally. Article is sourced and nom doesn't seem sure that he might not be notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, emphatic keep This botanist has a botanical author abbreviation, Palmgr., which means that he described or redescribed species, genera, families, etc. That makes him notable. Rkitko (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Lquilter (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plainly notable per WP:PROF based on contributions to botany; any Ghits for someone from first half of 20th century is strong indicator of notability; also appears to be notable in early 20th century peace movement. --Lquilter (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an important researcher in several key evolution and ecology topics of the 20th century. As the article notes, he worked on microspecies (still an important topic), island biogeography (and was one of the few working on subarctic islands instead of tropical), as well as the fact that has has a botanical author abbreviation, meaning that he is responsible for the description or renaming of plant taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:57, 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 Redirect to Captain N: The Game Master.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Keene[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon character. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the valuable content is already in the main Captain N: The Game Master article anyways. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Captain N: The Game Master: Why not? Definitely no need for all of this info to be in a separate article, as the main article appears to cover the character well enough. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto' with Rjd0060. K a r n a (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I created this article, it was a redirect to the Captain N article. That's how it should be. --Optichan 22:02, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Two Dogs (Captain N episode)[edit]

A Tale of Two Dogs (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some content should be moved to slightly expand the plot sections in List of Captain N: The Game Master episodes, and the list in that article should be modified to remove the redlinks, but the level of coverage for this and the other episode articles is not necessary for an encyclopedia. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above argument. RMHED (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom (trivial, plot information). It isn't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources to prove notability - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Game (Captain N episode)[edit]

The Big Game (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some content should be moved to slightly expand the plot sections in List of Captain N: The Game Master episodes, and the list in that article should be modified to remove the redlinks, but the level of coverage for this and the other episode articles is not necessary for an encyclopedia. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above argument. RMHED (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom (trivial, plot information). It isn't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for the Potion of Power (Captain N episode)[edit]

Quest for the Potion of Power (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videolympics (Captain N episode)[edit]

Videolympics (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See other comments about these episode articles up for AFD. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above argument. RMHED (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom (trivial, plot information). It isn't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Dangerous Game Master[edit]

The Most Dangerous Game Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See other comments about these episode articles up for AFD. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above argument. RMHED (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the nom (trivial, plot information). It isn't notable either. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stradivarius (INDITEX)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. AvruchTalk 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep poorly written and needs sources but over 300 stores in 24 countries seems notable. Ridernyc (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 300 stores says who? As you say, no sources. AvruchTalk 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their store locator does list 300+ stores in many countries, so they are possibly notable. It's a pain finding any info on them though -- I don't want freaking violins, I want info on a clothing store! Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The term, I believe, is "Googleplexing" - having other things with the same name make searching arduous or nigh-impossible. As difficulty increases, so must our benefit of the doubt. --Kizor (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cleanup, a lot. Large, international chain, owned by an also notable company. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjd0060 Jonathan (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above; hopefully someone can verify the information here and fight through the Googleplexing or whatever it is. 300 stores in 24 countries would indicate that this chain is indeed large enough to have a few reliable sources about it. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:31, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's Bayou (Captain N episode)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
How's Bayou (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin In Videoland (Captain N episode)[edit]

Kevin In Videoland (Captain N episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cartoon episode. Basically nothing but a plot summary and random trivia. Ridernyc (talk) 00:22, 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. This is only a one-sentence article and does not assert notability and nobody expanded the article during the discussion. --JForget 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioners Road (London, Ontario)[edit]

Commissioners Road (London, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-liner about a road, could be notable, but not obviously so - lots of ghits for "Commissioners Road" + London + Ontario - but most of the top ones seem to be for businesses located on the road, real estate firms having something listed on the road, or businesses off the road with website directions indication one should travel on the road. nn unless someone finds something more. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In another deletion debate the author of this article (User:Merkin77) has expressed their interest in improving the articles covering the roads of London. They have made major improvements to other London, Ontario road articles and I see no reason to suppose they will not make contributions to this one. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unless the user expands it before this debate closes. It isn't notable from what I can tell. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a major road in a principal city. It needs expansion, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a major part of this project. Needs categorization. K a r n a (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just started to edit this article and I am working on improving it over the next few days. I have written other road articles in London. I'm just collecting information. Merkin77 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Current article doesn't even assert notability nor is it clear where reliable sources covering the road itself substantially would come from. In general, we only have articles on roads in cities if they are well known for something. Just being a major road or part of a project are not sufficient reason to have an article.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a road, even a major road, is not notable in and of itself. WP is not a travel atlas, unless I'm mistaken. Epthorn (talk) 04:27, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Boruta[edit]

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

Delete nn film school project, fails WP:MOVIE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bury the Beatles' Love me do too since it's been even a pre-grad project. greg park avenue 17:42, 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 SkierRMH (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show It 2 Me[edit]

Show It 2 Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources provided for album release Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motherfucker[edit]

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

One big OR article of a dictdef. We already have it on Wikitionary.--SeizureDog (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per Martijn Hoekstra. We definitely need cleanup on this article, as none of the sources are key to the article itself, and much of it is original research or non-NPOV. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Transwiki - [old reason removed] SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it badly needs cleanup. I'm sure there is plenty to be said about it in an ecyclopedic fashion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:George Carlin. JJL (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep voters need to mention what this article could include it justify its presence. At present, "origins" is the only section of any possible worth, and we don't keep articles on words just to tell the etymology. Notable words do not equal notable articles.--SeizureDog (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not a perfect article either, I'm thinking something allong the lines of bullshit.Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Fuck, although I would recommend deleting completely the "uses in popular culture section". The origins section is encyclopedic, but that would be reducing the article to a stub. Maybe the content belongs in the Fuck article as a small section of its own. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support a merge, since the word is simply an extention of "fuck".--SeizureDog 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as obviously notable; the worse word you can say in English, with lots of verifiable sources about its nuances beyond a dicdef. A serious attempt can be made to find WP:RS. Bearian 17:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piss, Cocksucker, and Tits (3 of the 7 "big" dirty words) don't have articles and I know for sure cocksucker was one that was transwikified. Also, if it's so obvious, can you provide an example RS on the subject?--SeizureDog 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this motherfucker. RFerreira 08:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:IAR if necessary. But Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation makes this word highly notable in the U.S. at least. (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_29&oldid=1081101247"